Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHANGHAI (CUSTOMS DUTY).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that no Customs control operates on the wharves at Shanghai except at a few in the French concession; that this has led to smuggling on an extensive scale; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking any action in the matter?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) on Monday last, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Salamanca authorities have replied to the British note of protest against attacks on British shipping?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. A communication has now been received from the Salamanca authorities, the terms of which cannot be regarded as satisfactory by His Majesty's Government. The reply which is to be returned to this communication is at present under consideration, and I should prefer not to make a statement until it has been communicated to General Franco's Administration.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Are His Majesty's Government prepared to distrain on money or property held in this country by the Salamanca authorities in the event of no satisfactory reply being received?

The Prime Minister: I think we had better await the time when that contingency arises.

Sir Percy Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the terms of the statement received from General Franco?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say more at the present time than that we did not consider the terms satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated number of British subjects at present resident in Kabul, Afghanistan; and whether His Majesty's representative is now permanently resident there?

The Prime Minister: Including the personnel of His Majesty's Legation, there are about 300 British subjects at present resident at Kabul, of whom 25 are Europeans. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what were the terms of the last communication received from His Majesty's representative there?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total number of valid British passports now in existence, issued either in the United Kingdom or at British consulates abroad?

The Prime Minister: The number of British passports issued in the United Kingdom and at British consulates abroad during the past five years, of which the first period of validity has not yet expired, is just over one million. It is not possible to estimate the number of passports issued in the previous five years which are still valid. These passport are renewable from time to time at the option of the holder for any period of one to five years from the date of expiration of the first period of validity.

Mr. Day: How many of these passports were issued abroad?

The Prime Minister: I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability, in connection with the negotiations for a general settlement with Italy, of suggesting that the Emperor of Abyssinia might be given jurisdiction over certain territory therein under conditions to be mutually agreed between Great Britain, Italy, and the League of Nations?

The Prime Minister: I cannot pledge myself in advance with regard to any discussions which His Majesty's Government may have with the Italian Government on the subject of Abyssinia.

Mr. Mander: Does not the Prime Minister consider that this is one of the things that might be brought forward? Might it not be to the advantage of Italy, and leave us with some shred of honour on this subject?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: At what stage will the House of Commons be consulted as to the terms to be made with the Duce?

The Prime Minister: Later on.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the Prime Minister tell us, in view of the arrangement which has been come to between him and Signor Mussolini, whether the relations between this country and Signor Mussolini are any more friendly than they were when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was Foreign Secretary?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to determine whether the recent Austro-German agreement conforms to the provisions of the treaty of St. Germain and the Geneva Protocol of 1922?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary on 17th February, when he said that he was not at that moment in a position to estimate the exact effects of the Austro-German Agreement. This is still the position, but, as my right hon. Friend stated on that occasion, His Majesty's Government are following developments with close attention.

Mr. Henderson: Do not His Majesty's Government intend to make representations to the German and Austrian Governments conveying the serious misgiving that is felt in this country and other countries with respect to this agreement?

The Prime Minister: I think we want to be in a position first to estimate what the effects of the agreement are.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the terms of the agreement have been published and given to the House of Commons in answer to a question; and is it not possible for His Majesty's Government to form an opinion on those facts?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
From information received from Austrian sources it is clear that no actual Treaty instrument was drawn up as a result of the conversations at Berchtesgaden, and it follows, therefore, that no document of this kind will be published."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1938; col. 6, Vol. 332.]
He went on to say that he had been informed again from Austrian sources of the main points of the agreement. It is clear that that requires further exploration and investigation. I may say, however, that an official Austrian communiqué has been issued to the effect that, contrary to rumour, the bases of Austrian monetary and economic policy will not be changed in any way.

Mr. Henderson: Have any communications been made to His Majesty's Government either by the representative of the German Government or of the Austrian Government? Have they received any representations?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I ought to be asked to answer questions of this kind without notice.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not a fact that, when these events occurred, questions were put and we were to have a statement later? We were unable to get a statement last Friday, because the information had not been received, but some time has elapsed since then, and surety some consideration must have been given by His Majesty's Government, in consultation with other Powers, to this fait accompli?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there have been changes in the Foreign Office


which have considerably complicated matters and have delayed a decision.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the estimated cost of Dartmouth College this year; the number of cadets under training; the number of staff; the number of cadets whose parents are paying the full fees; the amount of the full fees; the numbers entered under the various rates of reduced fees and the amounts of the reduced fees; the number of vacancies offered for Dartmouth cadets at the last entry; and the number of applicants and of those rejected for medical, educational and other reasons, respectively?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): The estimated cost to Navy Votes of the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, in the current financial year, is £112,940. The number of cadets at present under training is 482, and of the staff, 326. I will send to the hon. Member separately the information for which he asks with regard to the fees paid. For the last entry into the college 45 vacancies were offered. Applicants totalled 115, of whom 70 were selected by the Interview Committee to sit for the examination, but of this number nine were found medically unfit, so that 61 took the examination. Of the 45 not selected for the examination, six were medically unfit.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say exactly how many of those who were accepted were drawn from public and secondary schools?

Mr. Cooper: Not without notice.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: When were commanding officers in the Navy last asked to report their views on the relative merits of the Dartmouth and public school systems of entry?

WRITER AND SUPPLY BRANCHES (PROMOTION).

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of writer and

supply ratings, respectively, who have passed the higher educational test for officer rank; and the number of each branch between the ages of 24 and 30 who have qualified professionally for officer rank; and his objections to a scheme of early promotion to commissioned rank for these branches, observing that such a scheme was instituted in the Royal Australian Navy 11 years ago, and that in the British Navy last year 26 ratings in other branches were promoted to commissioned rank?

Mr. Cooper: As there is no scheme for the direct promotion of ratings in the writer and supply branches to commissioned rank, the question of their being qualified either professionally or educationally for that rank does not arise. With regard to the third part of the question, the hon. Member will observe that, in the reply given to him on this subject on 17th February, 1937, it was stated that commissioned officers of the accountant branch are required to supervise the activities of several specialised branches, and that it would take a rating promoted from the lower deck at least 2½ years to learn these duties. After careful consideration, the Admiralty have reached the conclusion that a special scheme for the instruction of ratings in these duties would not be justified. I hope, however, to make an announcement in the course of the Debate on the Navy Estimates regarding improved prospects of promotion of accountant branch ratings to commissioned rank through warrant rank.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES.

TRINIDAD.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes now to give instructions that the additional troops stationed in Trinidad since the departure of the Commission to England shall be withdrawn?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Yes, Sir. Arrangements are being made for the withdrawal of the troops on 29th March, unless the situation unexpectedly deteriorates before that date.

Mr. de Rothschild: Is there any reason for further apprehension?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: None that I have heard of. I think the situation is very satisfactory.

ST. LUCIA.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the final report of the Commission of inquiry appointed in 1937 in the island of St. Lucia?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think it desirable to lay this report on the Table of the House, but I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

ST. KITTS.

Mr. F. O. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in acquiring land for the land settlement in St. Kitts.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Governor of the Leeward Islands has submitted proposals which are at present under consideration.

Mr. Roberts: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to make a further announcement?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is very largely a question of finance. The existing land settlement scheme was only carried out with the help of the Colonial Development Fund, from which a part of the cost was paid, amounting to about £4,000.

Mr. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any wage-fixing machinery exists in the island of St. Kitts; and whether wages have been increased since the date of the increase of the preference on sugar in 1932?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Legislation has recently been enacted enabling the Governor of the Leeward Islands to fix a minimum rate of wage for any occupation in St. Kitts or in any other Presidency of the Colony. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that the wages and salaries of employés of the sugar factory were increased in 1932, and that in the case of field labourers a bonus was distributed on some cane-growing estates in 1934.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is not this a matter which the Colonial Office itself might pursue, with a view to seeing that, once an Ordinance has been passed, it is actually put into operation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That, obviously, is in the first instance a matter for the local Governor. I can only assent to the Act, once it is passed.

Mr. Riley: Does the right hon. Gentleman receive reports from the Governors on these matters?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I receive fairly regular reports from time to time.

Mr. Benn: When the right Gentleman says that it is for the Governor to operate the Act, does he mean that he himself has no responsibility in the matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, but the power rests in the Governor to put the Act into operation, and it is for the Governor to act.

IMMIGRATION.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is taking steps to set up the Royal Commission on emigration to and settlement in the West Indies recommended by the commission on labour disturbances in Barbados?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As I stated on 9th February, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), I am awaiting the considered proposals of the Colonial Government on the recommendations of the commission. While the desirability of providing outlets for the excess population in Barbados is fully recognised, it appears very doubtful whether so large a number of persons as 20,000 could be found willing to emigrate. In any event, I am doubtful whether the appointment of a Royal Commission is the best way of endeavouring to find some solution of this problem.

Mr. Ridley: Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the idea of setting up any form of inquiry at any time? If I put a question down later, will he give a more definite reply?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, I think it would be wrong to adduce that. Certainly, I think a Royal Commission is out of the question. It is a question of finding out (a) whether any of the people of Barbados wish to emigrate, and (b) if they do, whether they can be accommodated in St. Lucia, British Guiana or some other part of the West Indies. That is entirely a question for technical examination, and I do not think a commission could possibly help.

NUTRITION.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will


publish or otherwise make available to Members recent reports on nutrition in Barbados and Jamaica?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am arranging for copies of the reports to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the very disturbing character of such reports as have already been published, and the desire of a very large number of Members to have the terms of these reports made public?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am most anxious, before I do anything on these matters, to have the advice of the Special Nutrition Committee here, which is receiving the report. Sir John Orr and other experts on nutrition are preparing these reports from the different parts of the Colonial Empire, and before we come to a judgment I think it is highly desirable that we should have the reports.

Mr. Ridley: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of some collective publication at a not too distant date?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will certainly consider the question of publishing the main committee's report and such extracts from the others as would be helpful.

LABOUR CONDITIONS.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what measures, if any, have been adopted during the past seven years to ameliorate the low wages and bad social conditions in His Majesty's West Indian possessions, as revealed in the Olivier Report to the Colonial Office in 1930?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is clearly impossible within the limits of question and answer to review the whole question of wages and social conditions in the many islands in the West Indies over a period of seven years; but if there are particular points on which the hon. Member desires specific information, I will do my best to obtain it from the local Governments.

Mr. Riley: Has any report been received which deals with the matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have been answering a large number of questions upon these various matters and, in every case have given the answers to the specific questions.

If the hon. Member requires any further information than has been given in my answers, he should put down a question.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is taking any steps, other than the appointment of an industrial adviser, to find a remedy for the low wages paid to the workers in the sugar and oil industries of Trinidad?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. The whole question of wages and working conditions will be examined within the industries concerned, with the advice and assistance of the new Industrial Adviser, and no other action by myself in this matter would appear to be desirable at present.

Mr. Riley: Can any explanation be given as to why the rates of wages in Trinidad for workers on sugar estates average about 1s. 6d. a day against 3s. for workers in the oil industry?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly, Sir. The oil industry provides a very different kind of work. As is almost universally the case, lower wages are paid in the agricultural industry, and it is a question, particularly in the sugar industry, whether the industry will close down or not, or whether there will be any employment of any kind. The wages in every industry, as in this country, must be a matter of collective bargaining and be fixed according to the capacity of the industry to pay. The oil industry is profitable, and the sugar industry is barely profitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

JEWISH IMMIGRATION.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the quota of Jewish immigrants into Palestine authorised in the years 1935, 1936, and 1937; and an estimate of the number of Jews who entered the country without permission in those years?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the answer is a long one, and includes a number of figures, I will, with the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Prior to 1st August last only labour immigrants were subject to restriction by quota. For the period of eight months from August, 1937, to March, 1938, the


total Jewish immigration in all categories has, in accordance with the statement of policy of July last, been restricted to 8,000 persons. The total Jewish immigration into Palestine in the years 1935 and 1936 was 61,854 and 29,727, of whom 27,729 and 11,477 represented labour immigrants with their dependants. In 1937, total Jewish immigration of all kinds was 9,837, but I am unable to say how many of these were labour immigrants. I can give no reliable estimate of the total number of Jews who entered Palestine illegally during those years.

DEPORTATIONS.

Mr. R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jewish persons of German nationality have been deported from Palestine to Germany since March, 1933; how many such deportations have been preceded by judicial inquiry or trial; and will he give instructions that, in future, Jewish persons of German nationality who have committed an offence should be dealt with otherwise than by deportation if possible, and that, if deportation is unavoidable, such deportation should take place to or through some country willing to grant such deportees an asylum?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Twenty-six Jews of German nationality were deported from Palestine during the four years 1934–1937, 22 for contravention of the provisions of the Immigration Ordinance and four for other offences. A recommendation of a court is not required in all cases and I am unable to say in how many of these cases such a recommendation was made. I regret that I cannot see my way to issue instructions in the sense desired by the hon. Member. I understand that every effort is made by the Palestine Government to minimise hardship by deferring execution of the deportation order when the deportee is making efforts to find another country of asylum.

Mr. Acland: Would the right hon. Gentleman remind the authorities that an order for deportation for Germany may be a very much more severe punishment than deportation in any ordinary circumstances?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I should make it quite clear that there is no question of deportation to Germany. We are bound under the Mandate to control immigration, and there has been a great deal of

illegal immigration. When an immigration order has been contravened, the immigrant must be repatriated. He cannot be sent anywhere else in the world.

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, JAFFA.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the position of Jewish inhabitants resident in those suburbs of Tel Aviv which come under the municipal administration of Jaffa; and whether, in view of the fact that these inhabitants are compelled to pay municipal taxes to Jaffa without receiving normal municipal service in return, he will now take steps to incorporate the suburbs in question with Tel Aviv?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am aware that certain of the residents in Jaffa have, ostensibly for political reasons, refused to pay rates and have obstructed the municipal council in the carrying out of its duties and responsibilities. The Palestine Royal Commission have recommended the establishment of a corridor between Jaffa and Tel Aviv, and while this and other possibilities in connection with partition are under examination, it is not considered appropriate to take up the question of any rectification of boundaries between the two municipal councils.

Mr. Williams: In view of the fact that there are 800 buildings and 2,000 persons receiving few or none of the municipal services, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the new High Commissioner should consider this great problem?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is all a question of where you are going to draw the line between Jaffa and Tel Aviv. Until you can get that determined, it is quite obvious that the ratepayers and residents in Jaffa have the same status as all other ratepayers, and they must continue to pay their rates to the responsible authority.

Mr. Williams: In view of the allegation that these services are not provided exclusively for the Jewish population, who do normally pay their rates, will the right hon. Gentleman consider this particular point of view of municipal boundaries, pending more permanent determination by the Commission?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I must make it clear that I have never heard it suggested that


the Jews in Jaffa do not get precisely the same services from the Jaffa municipality as the Christians and the Arabs.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that, when certain Jewish merchants resident in those suburbs of Tel Aviv which come under the administration of Jaffa recently applied for municipal licences, they were asked to pay their taxes and to sign a declaration that they were opposed to incorporation with Tel Aviv, and that when they declined, the licences were refused and they were fined; and can he take steps to protect these individuals?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no information about this matter, but I am asking the High Commissioner for a report.

Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the report is based upon facts that they have been fined for not signing this document, will he have the matter reconsidered by the new High Commissioner when he commences his duties?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I must await the receipt of the report.

NYASALAND (INTERPRETERS).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the applications for the post of clerk interpreter for service in Zomba, Nyasaland, are confined to Europeans, in view of the fact that African interpreters have been employed for many years past?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The appointment is necessitated by the rapidly growing work of translating technical, scientific and legal documents and books into local vernaculars. This work requires a higher knowledge of English than is possessed at present, so far as is known, by any native of Nyasaland.

Mr. Lunn: Are we to take it from the answer that the applications of natives fitted for these posts will no longer be considered?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Oh, no. This is a particular post for the translation of particular work, and we cannot find a native in Nyasaland to do this high-grade work.

Mr. Lunn: Do I take it that natives will be considered for such work in Nyasaland?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Of course, they will; but not for this particular thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS.

WAGES.

Mr. McGhee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the wages of labourers employed on works financed by the Colonial Development Fund in British Honduras; and whether there has been any recent increase consequent upon the increased cost of living?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Up to 30th September, 1937, the latest date for which figures are available, the rates paid for unskilled labour employed on works (mainly road improvement) financed from the Colonial Development Fund in British Honduras ranged from 75 cents (at present 3s.) to one dollar per day, and, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, practically all the labour employed on these works falls into this category. I have received no information from the Governor as to any rise in the cost of living in British Honduras.

BELIZE ESTATE AND PRODUCE COMPANY.

Mr. McGhee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of the settlement of the land dispute with the Belize Estate and Produce Company have yet been published in the colony of British Honduras; whether the company has asked for the monopoly of the felling of mahogany in the Crown forests; and whether the interests of the natives who fell and sell mahogany to other buyers will be considered and safeguarded?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: So far as I am aware, the agreement in question has not been published. It does not, however, as the hon. Member seems to imply, relate in any way to mahogany felling, which is governed by the Forest Ordinance and Rules made thereunder. The Belize Estate and Produce Company has not asked for a monopoly for the felling of mahogany in Crown forests, nor is there any intention to grant them one. In these circumstances, the third part of the question would not appear to arise.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. McGhee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, arising out of his reply to a petition of over 2,000 signatories in Belize, who complained of the heavy indebtedness of the Colony of British Honduras and the need to establish new industries, any schemes of economic reconstruction have been recommended to him by the Government of British Honduras?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Both before and since the receipt of the petition in question, the Government of British Honduras has been engaged in the consideration of schemes for the economic development of that colony. During the last year financial assistance has been given from the Colonial Development Fund for improving means of communication and for the promotion of schemes for the development of fruit-growing. Exports of bananas have increased from 264,000 bunches in 1935 to about 1,000,000 bunches in 1937, and those of grapefruit from about 13,000 cwts. in 1934 to 19,000 cwts. in 1936.

WEST AFRICA (COCOA TRADE, COMMISSION).

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to announce the membership of the commission that is to inquire into the cocoa position in West Africa?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. The commission will be composed as follows:
Mr. William Nowell, C.M.G., C.B.E., formerly Director of the East African Agricultural Research Station, Amani (chairman);
Mr. Rupert Thompson of Messrs. William James and Henry Thompson, Produce Brokers, of Mincing Lane; and
Mr. C. A. Irving, one of the Marketing Officers in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; with
Mr. Eugene Melville of the Colonial Office as secretary.
The commission has provisionally arranged to sail for West Africa on 9th March.

MALAYA (IRON ORE EXPORTS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the tonnage and value of iron ore exported from Malaya in 1936 and 1937, and its principal destinations?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The total exports from the Malay States in 1936 were 1,610,000 tons valued at £736,000, and in the first 11 months of 1937 they were 1,450,000 tons valued at £786,000. The mines are under Japanese control and virtually all the exports go to Japan.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

BAD VISIBILITY (PILOTS' INSTRUCTIONS).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Air Ministry instructions directing pilots to fly during bad visibility at specified heights for specified courses, with a view to preventing collisions, fail to take account of the fact that as between say England and Germany there may be in certain weather conditions a difference of atmospheric pressure on the ground equivalent to a difference of height in the air of as much as 600 feet, so that converging aircraft within the three-mile limit off the British coast might in fact be flying at the same height although their altimeters showed a difference in height, and that the instructions are therefore dangerous; and whether he will cause them to be withdrawn and re-issued with a table of corrections to a given datum for a given district?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Adjustments to the altimeter, which is fitted in the standard instrument panel of service aircraft and used by the majority of civil aircraft, to allow for variations of barometric pressure can and should be made by pilots while in flight, and constitute an adequate safeguard in the circumstances visualised. Information as to barometric pressure can be obtained from all local meteorological stations before starting the flight or in Britain from the Borough Hill broadcast system every hour or on request from any Air Ministry Control Station while in the air.

OFFICERS (AIR MINISTRY).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what


action he is taking in regard to the complaints as to the treatment of officers serving at the Air Ministry in the Department of Civil Aviation?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: A certain number of complaints have, during the past 12 months, been made depart-mentally and have been dealt with. My Noble Friend is, however, having a further inquiry made into the conditions in the directorate.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the nature of the inquiry which his Noble Friend is making? Is it a commission of inquiry, or what is the nature of the inquiry which is proceeding?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, Sir, it is in no sense a big commission of inquiry. It is merely an inquiry connected with Departmental working.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that it is desirable that this inquiry should be held by people who are quite outside the Department, any Service Department or any Government Office? May I ask for a reply on that point?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not suggesting that the inquiry is merely being carried out with the personnel within the Department. What I meant was that there is not a big Commission sitting.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, after consulting his Noble Friend, consider whether he cannot inform the House of the precise nature of the inquiry which is taking place, and will he say who are the people concerned in making the inquiry?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ACCOMMODATION (SPEKE).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Grant-Ferris: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air when a start is expected to be made with the new buildings for the Royal Air Force at Speke, in view of the fact that the auxiliary air force squadron stationed there is very badly housed?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Auxiliary Air

Force is a separate armed force of the Crown and as such ought to be entitled to capital letters on the Order Paper?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Alternative schemes for the provision of permanent accommodation at Speke are under consideration, and pending a final decision in the matter, interim measures are being taken to improve the conditions at this aerodrome.

HAWKER HURRICANE AIRCRAFT.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many squadrons are equipped with the Hawker Hurricane aircraft; and whether the delivery is in every way satisfactory?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. Deliveries are coming forward satisfactorily.

SPITFIRE AIRCRAFT.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the new Spitfire aircraft will be delivered into regular service?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hulbert) on Wednesday last.

BOMBING AEROPLANES, SOUTHERN ARABIA.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the use of British bombing aeroplanes in Southern Arabia during the past 12 months; and whether, during such period, British aeroplanes have been engaged in bombing operations in any territory in Southern Arabia which is not under British control?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Royal Air Force Squadron at Aden has been used during the past 12 months for normal Service training and for co-operation with the political authorities in maintaining order in the Protectorate. Air operations have been conducted on eight occasions against tribes who have defied authority following crimes of violence. These operations were followed in all cases by a return to submission to authority. On three occasions this was secured by demonstration flights alone; on the other five occasions the villages of the tribes


concerned were bombed after the usual protracted warnings which enabled evacuation to be undertaken. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that public opinion in this country is against the use of bombing aeroplanes against native populations, he will take steps to check this practice?

The Prime Minister: We should be prepared to stop bombing from the air altogether if others would agree to do the same.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the use of bombing aeroplanes for this purpose does not depend upon the international situation, cannot that decision be made in respect of our own territories?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

REGIONAL CONTROL.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will call a conference of representatives of the local authorities within an approximate 50-mile radius of Manchester, the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, and the London and North Eastern Railway Company for the purpose of considering the need of unified control of transport and the construction of an electric railway system radiating over the whole area;
(2) whether it is his policy to encourage the organising of regional control of transport where it is essential; and what steps are being taken, or are contemplated, with a view of securing regional organisation and control?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am always ready to give sympathetic consideration to any sound scheme for promoting co-ordination and increased efficiency in transport services. It is for the local government authorities and transport interests concerned to take the initiative in the establishment of a regional scheme.

Mr. Smith: As there is great need for organisation of the kind suggested in the question in the area referred to, will the

Minister adopt a policy which will stimulate action of this kind in areas where it is so required?

Mr. Burgin: I shall be glad to receive suggestions. I think that the area which the hon. Member mentions in Question No. 39 is an extremely wide one—wider than anything that has yet been suggested—but if plans come before me, they will receive careful consideration.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consult with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, the President of the Board of Trade, and other interested people on the desirability of deepening, widening, and extending the Manchester Ship Canal to meet the River Humber?

Mr. Burgin: No such scheme has been proposed to me by the responsible authorities, and having regard to the physical difficulties in the way of such an extension of the Ship Canal, I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by my taking the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that had the course that he is adopting been adopted 50 years ago, the Manchester Ship Canal would never have been built? Is there not great need for initiative to be taken by Government Departments with a view to the preparation of public work in matters of this kind?

Mr. Burgin: Manchester is connected with the Humber by canals and barges. What the hon. Member suggests is a ship canal in a direct line between the Manchester Ship Canal and the Humber, which would involve going through the Pennines.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the great strategic value of a proposal of this character and also what has been done in other countries in matters of this kind?

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (STAFF SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make inquiries of the London Passenger Transport Board as to whether they propose to extend the superannuation scheme which is now in operation for some of their employés to all workers on their regular staff?

Mr. Burgin: The board inform me that all members of both sexes of their clerical, technical and supervisory staffs, who are not already members of an existing superannuation, endowment or pensions fund can become members of the London Transport (Administrative and Supervisory) Staff Superannuation Fund; the only exceptions are those debarred through ill-health or age. The board state that every member of the staff of whatever category who is not a member of one or other of the superannuation, endowment or pension funds to which the board contribute is, subject to the board's pleasure, eligible upon retirement to an ex gratia grant or pension, but that the financial burden of providing a pensions fund for the wages staff would be such that the board cannot contemplate incurring such an obligation at the present time.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that many of the operating staff taken over from public authorities are at present on the pension scheme, and is it not possible, in view of the very large revenue and profits that are being made by the board, to give the same benefits to all their employés as are now enjoyed by many of them?

ROADS AND BRIDGES (WEARDALE AND TEESDALE).

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared to give an increased grant to the Durham County Council to enable urgent alterations and repairs to roads and bridges in Weardale and Teesdale areas to be undertaken?

Mr. Burgin: My Department has not, as yet, received any scheme for the improvement of roads or bridges in the Weardale or Teesdale areas. The rates of grant applicable to highway improvement schemes take into account both the relative financial position of each area and the type of work. The County of Durham is included among the authorities to which the highest rates apply.

RAILWAY FACILITIES (EMPIRE EXHIBITION, GLASGOW).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make representations to the railway companies of this country to run cheap excursions from all over the country to Glasgow when the Empire Exhibition is opened in May this year, in order that thousands of persons

in Britain who have heard of the River Clyde may have an opportunity of seeing it as well as the exhibition?

Mr. Burgin: The railway companies, in conjunction with the exhibition authorities, have been giving careful consideration to the question of offering special fares and facilities in connection with the Empire Exhibition. A public announcement will, I am informed, be made very shortly.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister use his influence to see that the railway companies grant every facility possible for people who visit the exhibition?

Mr. Burgin: I am most anxious that the transport facilities for this important Empire Exhibition should be of the best possible character.

ROAD SERVICES.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has recently made inquiry as to whether the abolition of tramway-car services and replacement by trolley omnibuses, is likely to be approved by municipal authorities throughout the country; and whether the policy of his Department is to be that privately-owned road-transport services should, as far as possible, be replaced by publicly-owned services?

Mr. Burgin: I am glad to note that many authorities have already made this change or are preparing to do so, but I have made no general inquiry on the point referred to in the first part of the question. The question of replacing privately-owned road transport services by publicly-owned services, which is a very different matter, is in the first instance one for the local authority concerned and must in any case depend upon the circumstances of the particular area.

PROPOSED FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the latest representations from the Forth Road Bridge Promotion Committee urging that a decision on the project should now be announced by the Government in view of increasing unemployment and better supplies of steel and other materials being obtainable; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now considered the renewed appeal of the local authorities and the Forth Road Bridge Promotion Committee regarding the preliminary steps to be taken in connection with the proposed Forth road bridge; and whether he is now prepared to authorise this long-delayed proposal?

Mr. Burgin: I am not in a position to add to the replies already given as to the Government's attitude towards this and similar projects.

Mr. Mathers: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the Promotion Committee as a body whose opinion should be given very careful consideration, and can he not take the initial step now of authorising the preliminary expenditure being incurred to be charged to the road account?

Mr. Burgin: I have already said that I cannot add to the replies I have given as to the Government's attitude towards this and similar schemes, but I am perfectly willing to admit that the Forth Road Bridge Promotion Committee are a body whose views should have consideration, together with those of any other authorised body.

Mr. Louis Smith: Does not the Minister consider the time is fast approaching, owing to the better position in the steel trade, when the construction of such bridges as this should be put in hand?

Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister accept the views of the Promotion Committee as indicated in their letter and embodied in my question?

Mr. Burgin: I am not prepared to add to the reply given with regard to this and similar projects.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport what reports he has received upon the working of the electrically-controlled traffic signals at present being operated in Piccadilly Circus; is he satisfied that these experiments have proved successful; and is he considering introducing them at any other busy traffic points in the Metropolitan area?

Mr. Burgin: The signals in Piccadilly Circus are working very satisfactorily and

I am hoping that similar installations will be introduced at other busy points.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say what has been the result of tests made at the Elephant and Castle, and whether he is considering introducing them at that junction?

LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Minister of Transport how many railway level-crossings still exist on the trunk roads under the control of his Department; what would be the approximate cost of their removal; and by what date it may be assumed that there will be none remaining?

Mr. Burgin: There are 84 railway crossings and 31 colliery and other crossings remaining on trunk roads. My desire is progressively to remove them all. Having regard however to the numerous factors which must be taken into consideration in each case, it is not possible to give undertakings as to dates and times.

Mr. Muff: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the level crossings in Hull?

Mr. Burgin: No, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the initiative in the removal of these crossings come from his Department or from the local authority?

Mr. Burgin: In a case of trunk roads the matter rests largely with my Department, but the actual details of a scheme must be worked out in conjunction with those on the spot. Trunk roads are up to 100 per cent. the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, except for those areas which pass through a county borough.

Mr. Thorne: Are we to understand that the Government are going to do nothing about level crossings?

FOOTPATHS AND GRASS MARGINS, TRUNK ROADS.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Minister of Transport what mileage of the trunk roads under his control, other than the mileage in built-up areas, is provided both with footpaths and grass margins suitable for ridden horses and driven livestock?

Mr. Burgin: I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether any road construction is in progress under the five-year road plan in the Island of Barra?

Mr. Burgin: Plans and estimates for the improvement of 13 miles of the Class I road in the Island of Barra have been submitted by the Inverness County Council, and I have agreed that the county council should invite tenders so that the works can be put in hand as soon as possible.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a matter of extreme urgency in view of the fact that the five-year plan, now three years old, is still only a plan?

Mr. Burgin: It is difficult to put into operation the construction of roads until the county council have made plans.

Mr. MacMillan: Can we have an assurance from the Minister that he will bring pressure to bear on the county council to expedite this matter?

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport what is the cause of nearly three years delay in starting the five-year road plan on first-class roads in the outer isles of Inverness-shire?

Mr. Burgin: Schemes have been prepared by the Inverness County Council for the improvement of 61½ miles of road in the Outer Isles. Work has already begun on 13 miles in Harris and tenders are being invited for the remainder. There has been no avoidable delay.

PENSIONS DISABILITIES (UNMARRIED WOMEN).

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister what steps it is proposed to take to give effect to the Resolution of this House with respect to pensions disabilities of certain unmarried women?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to implement the Resolution of the House of 16th February relating to spinsters' pensions?

The Prime Minister: It has been decided to appoint a committee in accordance with the Resolution adopted last week. The membership and terms of reference will be announced in due course.

GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to publish all the recent relevant communications between the British and Italian Governments concerning the proposed negotiations?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I see no useful purpose which could be served by such publication.

Mr. Mander: In view of the profound difference in the accounts given of this communication by the Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In view of the profound difference disclosed, is it not only fair that the House should have an opportunity of making up its own mind on the matter? Will the Prime Minister be good enough to answer?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member's question is whether I will arrange to publish all the recent relevant communications between the British and Italian Governments in regard to the proposed negotiations. That is a very unreasonable request, and one entirely without precedent.

Mr. Attlee: Did not the Prime Minister quote from certain documents, in the course of his speeches and, therefore, in accordance with Parliamentary practice should not these documents be laid?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that I quoted. I described some conversations which had taken place. I am within the recollection of the House that I did not actually quote words.

Mr. Benn: Is it not the practice of this House that if anything like extensive reference is made to certain documents, the House should have the right to see those documents?

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Is it not the case that if a document is quoted and it is not in the public interest to publish it, it is not laid?

Mr. Speaker: The Rule is that if an official document is quoted, that official document must be laid.

Mr. Mander: Did not the Prime Minister say in the Debate that he saw no objection to the documents being published?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will look at the record of what I said—I have taken the trouble to look, in view of his question—he will see that what I said was that there was nothing in what had taken place that I should be afraid to publish, meaning to say that there was nothing of which I had any reason to be ashamed.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the wide divergence of opinion between the Prime Minister and the ex-Foreign Secretary on the interpretation of particular documents, does not the Prime Minister consider that it would be in the public interest to settle that disagreement?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The suggestion of the hon. Member appears to be that the decision of the Government turned upon the interpretation of certain documents, on which, as he says, there is a difference of opinion between the late Foreign Secretary and his colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture last night told the House that, as far as he was concerned, he did not at any time feel himself under threat or duress. I have since asked the rest of my colleagues whether they share that opinion, and they have unanimously told me that none of them felt under threat or duress in taking the decision they did. In these circumstances, although it is obvious that words may be interpreted differently by different people, the real point as to whether the Government were influenced in their decision by a threat, is obviously answered.

Mr. Mander: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government remain bound by the pledge of the late Foreign Secretary that anti-British propaganda must cease before Anglo-Italian negotiations can be entered upon?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any statement made by the late Foreign Secretary which could be regarded as a pledge binding His Majesty's Government of the kind suggested by the hon. Member. I have already explained to the House the principles on which these negotiations will be undertaken.

Mr. Mander: Did not the late Foreign Secretary in his speech to the House the other day make it perfectly clear that he regarded himself as pledged on behalf of the Government to this?

The Prime Minister: My recollection of what my right hon. Friend said was that he could not himself come and present to the House negotiations which were not in accordance with the views that he had previously expressed, but if the hon. Member can quote any words of my right hon. Friend which he thinks can fairly be considered as a pledge binding on the Government, I should be very glad to have them.

Mr. Cocks: Is the Prime Minister aware that on 23rd December, the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) told the House that the Foreign Secretary had informed the Italian Government that we could not consider negotiations until anti-British propaganda had been withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: I shall be glad to look into that, but, at any rate, it does not appear to be a pledge to this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

FACTORIES.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is aware that there are in the town of Dumfries large works lying idle, formerly owned by the Arrol-Johnston and Aster Engineering Company, Limited; why these works have been neglected when large buildings are being erected in many parts of the country in connection with the rearmament programme; and whether he will endeavour to make early use of these works and thus avoid unnecessary building and also provide employment for the people of this part of the world?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): Yes, Sir. The buildings referred to by the hon. Member have been brought to my notice on several occasions, and at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) I have personally and at great length investigated the case with the assistance of the Service Departments. I regret that it has not been found possible to make use of them in connection with the current Defence Programme.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the number of works and/or factories to be established in Monmouthshire by the Service Departments, the sites selected, and when the works will be commenced?

Sir T. Inskip: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works on 20th December, 1937, regarding the factory to be erected at Usk in Monmouthshire. There are also proposals under consideration for the erection of another factory at a site in Monmouthshire, but I regret that it is not possible to make any further statement at this stage.

Mr. Jenkins: Has a definite decision been arrived at by the Government with regard to placing the second factory?

Sir T. Inskip: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "a definite decision," but the final formalities have not yet been completed.

OIL EXTRACTION (FALMOUTH COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (1) whether he has any information as to the means by which the terms of the Falmouth Report were in the hands of the German Government prior to its publication in this country;
(2) whether he has any information as to the means whereby a leading banking firm was made aware of the contents of the Falmouth Report six weeks before publication and was thus able to negotiate for the purchase of an option on the Fischer process of extracting oil from coal?

Sir T. Inskip: My attention has been called to allegations appearing in an organ of the Press to the same effect as the allegations contained in the hon. Member's questions. Inquiry was made with a view to testing the allegation contained in the second question, and the result was to show the allegation to be unfounded. All the information I have shows that the allegation in the first question is equally without foundation. In view of the serious statements made in these questions, I invite the hon. Member to give me all the information at his disposal in order that the matter may be throughly investigated.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the report to which the Minister refers gives the name of the agent who went from England to discuss with the German Government the setting up of a company in this country subsidiary to the company in Germany?

Sir T. Inskip: The report which has been published speaks for itself. So far as I understand the hon. Member's question, there is no statement in the report which supports in any way the allegation contained in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that it gives the name of the individual who acted as the agent for the company formed on this side, and who went to Germany about six weeks ago to make a deal? Is the Minister inquiring whether that individual is under observation or not?

Sir T. Inskip: I am entirely at a loss to know what the hon. Member's allegations are with reference to the report. If he will be good enough to give me the grounds on which he has based the allegations contained in his question, I will, as I have said, thoroughly investigate them.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND REGISTRATION.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Attorney-General whether, in the absence of surveys, further Orders have been made since October, 1936, under Section 120 of the Land Registration Act, 1925; and, if the staffing of the registry is not adequate, owing to the additional work arising from the Middlesex Order, will he expand the staff, so that the public may enjoy fully the facilities provided by the Act?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terrence O'Connor): The last Order made under Section 120 of the Land Registration Act, 1925, was that making registration on sale compulsory in the County of Middlesex which was made on 3rd July, 1936, and came into operation on 1st January, 1937. Adequate arrangements will be made for such increase of the staff of the Land Registry as may be rendered necessary by the creation of any further compulsory area, but it will first be necessary to undertake some further revision of the maps of whatever area may be selected. The question of the area to be selected and of the date at


which the notice required by the section should be given is in an advanced stage of consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICE OF WORKS (ESTATE SURVEYORS).

Mr. Morgan: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that in the advertisement inviting applications for nominations to compete for posts as estate surveyors in his Department, it is stated that candidates must have passed the examination of either the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, the Land Agents' Society, or that of the Faculty of Surveyors of Scotland; and why the examination of the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents is not included?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Civil Service Commission have under consideration the question of admitting the final examination of this society as a qualification for candidates for posts similar to those of estate surveyors throughout the civil service generally, and a decision is expected to be given shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGES (RECORDS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Attorney-General, (1) whether the High Court reports annulments of marriages to the Registrar-General; and whether in view of the fact that, after the High Court has declared a marriage to be null and void, it remains recorded at Somerset House as if it were a true and permanent marriage, he will consult with the Registrar-General with a view to co-ordinating the records of the two departments;
(2) whether he is aware that the continuation by the Registrar-General of uncorrected records of marriages declared by a court of justice to be null and void, or bigamous, will cause confusion when accurate facts are required in future about the authenticity of a marriage; and why bigamous marriages are retained on the Somerset House register so that they appear as uncorrected records of true and permanent marriages, although the bigamy has been detected and the fictitious marriage dealt with and cancelled by the High Court; and what steps he is

taking to ensure that annulments are recorded against the original entries or the entries expunged from the register?

The Solicitor-General: The High Court does not report the annulment or dissolution of a marriage to the Registrar-General, and, if it did so report, the Registrar-General would have no power to alter his register. An entry in a marriage register is evidence that a marriage was solemnised in accordance with the forms by law. But it affords prima facie evidence only that the ceremony resulted in a valid marriage; and such an entry does not necessarily imply that the marriage subsisted to any particular date, since it may have been terminated by the death of either party or by a judicial dissolution of the marriage; and that dissolution might have been effected by a Court outside this country. Furthermore, even if the Registrar-General possessed any power to alter or annotate entries in his register, those entries are only copies of original registers in the possession of those before whom the marriage was solemnised.

Mr. Liddall: Does not the Solicitor-General agree that, if the fact is as stated and the marriage when once declared null and void still remains on the register, it should be up to some authority to see that it is removed?

The Solicitor-General: No, Sir. The entry in the register, as I explained to my hon. Friend, records that a valid marriage took place. That cannot be altered by a subsequent decree. A decree of nullity does not in all cases imply that all the effects of a valid marriage are obliterated.

Mr. Liddall: But though the record still remains on the register, you cannot say these people are still married.

The Solicitor-General: No, Sir; but if unfortunately a lady becomes a widow, you cannot say she is still married, yet the fact remains that the record of her marriage remains upon the register.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the accommodation in public elementary schools is still based on the assessment made over 30 years


ago; and whether it is proposed to make any re-assessment of this accommodation in the light of educational experience?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Most of the schools which have not yet been reorganised are assessed on a standard of 10 square feet for each child over 8 years old and 9 square feet for each child under 8. These measurements are being revised on the standard of 12 square feet for each child over 11 years old and 10 square feet for each child under 11, as the schools are reorganised, subject, of course, to the overriding limitations of 40 and 50 as maximum numbers of pupils per class.

SIZE OF CLASSES (SECONDARY SCHOOLS).

Mr. Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of classes containing more than 40 pupils in State-aided secondary schools at the latest date for which figures are available?

Mr. Lindsay: None, Sir.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary inquire of the inspectors whether there is information available that there are such classes in secondary schools?

Mr. Lindsay: My answer was, "None, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

COMMUNITY CENTRES.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Minister of Health whether he can furnish a detailed list of the local authorities in England and Wales which have completed community centres or buildings of similar type on their housing estates and who are now in course of erecting such centres, respectively?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the list which was circulated on 21st December last in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), of which I am sending him a copy. I have no additions to make to that list. Proposals for the provision of community centres in Durham City, in Oxford and in Pontypridd are at present before my right hon. Friend.

Colonel Nathan: May I ask whether, when the schemes are submitted by local authorities to the Minister of Health for approval, encouragement will be given to local authorities to include community centres in their plans?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is most anxious that as many as possible of the local authorities should include community centres in their schemes.

ELDERLY PERSONS.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Minister of Health the total number of dwellings of suitable types erected by local authorities for elderly persons under the various Housing Acts; and whether it is his intention to encourage local authorities to erect such dwellings under the provisions of the Housing Bill now before Parliament?

Mr. Bernays: By the end of last month my right hon. Friend had approved the provision by local authorities of approximately 29,600 dwellings of the type to which the hon. and gallant Member refers: my right hon. Friend will continue to encourage the provision of such houses by local authorities with the assistance to be afforded under the Housing Bill now before Parliament.

NON-PARLOUR HOUSES (COST).

Colonel Nathan: asked the Minister of Health the average prices of non-parlour houses, excluding flats and houses specially erected for aged persons, provided by local authorities in England and Wales, for each quarter in the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, respectively; and whether his Department is still finding it necessary to withhold sanction for loans in certain cases on the ground that the tender prices are unsatisfactory?

Mr. Bernays: The answer to the first part of the question involves a tabular statement, and I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the second part, I may refer to the remarks on this matter which my right hon. Friend made on the Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill.

Following is the statement:

Particulars relating to prices desired by the hon. and gallant Member so far as they are available. The figures relate to


contracts let and direct labour schemes commenced by local authorities in

Year.
Average cost* of non-parlour houses, excluding flats and houses specially erected for aged persons, provided in the quarter ending






31st March.
30th June.
30th September.
31st December.






£
£
£
£


1935
…
…
…
295
302
299
309


1936
…
…
…
307
310
311
327


1937
…
…
…
342
361
362
364


* Including the cost of paths, drains and fences, but excluding the cost of land, roads, sewers and Architects' fees.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions: first, for what purpose does he wish to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night, and how far does he propose that we should go; and secondly, when does he expect to be in a position to be able to announce the name of the new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

The Prime Minister: As regards the business for to-day, we are moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule purely as a precautionary measure. We hope to make good progress with the Cinematograph Films Bill, without asking the House to sit late, and we also propose to take the Second and Third Orders on the Paper, the Report stage of two Money Resolutions, which are exempted business. As regards the second question,

England and Wales (other than the London County Council).

I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope to do so very shortly.

Mr. Attlee: When considering that appointment, will the right hon. Gentleman remember the grave disadvantage which arose when there was only an Under-Secretary in this House to answer on foreign affairs, and will he consider the feeling of the House with regard to the representation of the Foreign Office in the House by a Cabinet Minister?

The Prime Minister: I shall try to keep all those matters in my mind.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 124.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Caine, G. R. Hall.
Cross, R. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Culverwell, C. T.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cartland, J. R. H.
De la Bère, R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Carver, Major W. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cary, R. A.
Denville, Alfred


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Doland, G. F.


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duggan, H. J.


Assheton, R.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Dunglass, Lord


Baillie, Sir A. W M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Eastwood, J. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Channon, H.
Eckersley, P. T.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Christie, J. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Ellis, Sir G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Emery, J. F.


Bernays, R. H.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Blair, Sir R.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Boulton, W. W.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Everard, W. L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Fildes, Sir H.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Fleming, E. L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Bull, B. B.
Cranborne, Viscount
Furness, S. N.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Butler, R. A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.




Gluckstein, L. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Salmon, Sir I.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mabane, W. (Huddersheld)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Granville, E. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sandys, E. D.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
McKie, J. H.
Savery, Sir Servington


Grimston, R. V.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Scott, Lord William


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J
Selley, H. R.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Gunsten, Capt. Sir D. W.
Magnay, T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Hambro, A. V.
Maitland, A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hannah, I. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Harbord, A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somerset, T.


Harrington, Marquess of
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, Sir G.
Markham, S. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Spens, W. P.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Storey, S.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morgan, R. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Touche, G. C.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Holdsworth, H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Hopkinson, A.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hulbert, N. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hutchinson, G C.
Pilkington, R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Porritt, R. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Procter, Major H. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Keeling, E. H.
Ramsbotham, H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wise, A. R.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wood, Hon. C. I. G.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Levy, T.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)



Liddall, W. S.
Rowlands, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lindsay, K. M.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lathan, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lawson, J. J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gallacher, W.
Leach, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gardner, B. W.
Lee, F.


Banfield, J. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Logan, D. G.


Batey, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.


Benson, G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
McGhee, H. G.


Bevan, A.
Hall, G. H. (Abordare)
MacLaren, A.


Bromfield, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maclean, N.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hardie, Agnes
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Burke, W. A.
Harris, Sir P. A,
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cape, T.
Hayday, A.
Mander, G. le M.


Charleton, H. C
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Marshall, F.


Chater, D.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Maxton, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Messer, F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Milner, Major J,


Cocks, F. S.
Hopkin, D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Muff, G.


Daggar, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, J. A.


Day, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pearson, A.


Dobbie, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kirkwood, D.
Pritt, D. N.







Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ridley, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
White, H. Graham


Riley, B.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Ritson, J.
Stephen, C.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Stokes, R. R.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)
Thorne, W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thurtle, E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Rothschild, J. A. de
Tinker, J. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Tomlinson, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Sexton, T. M.
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Simpson, F. B.
Walkden, A. G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Watkins, F. C.



Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Watson, W. McL.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (AMENDMENT).

Mr. R. Acland: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require an indication of origin in the case of certain goods imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries.
The Bill which I ask the leave of the House to introduce definitely relates to the situation in the Far East, but it does not, as some hon. Members may expect, say that we should forthwith boycott all Japanese goods. In 1926 the House passed the Merchandise Marks Act because certain people then, rightly or wrongly, desired to discriminate between British goods, Empire goods and foreign goods. To-day, for reasons which, again, may be right or wrong, certain people desire to discriminate between British goods, Empire goods and foreign goods generally, on the one hand, and Japanese goods on the other hand. But the Act of 1926 left to the foreigner the option of marking his goods with a precise indication of the country of origin or with the vaguer term "Foreign." The Bill which I now seek leave to introduce would provide, subject to a large number of safeguards, that in future goods from certain countries should be marked with a precise indication of the country from which they come.
I hope it will not be thought that this small Bill represents the whole policy of my party in relation to the Far East. We would like to do something very much more effective—so much more that some of our more irresponsible opponents say that the Liberal party would like this country to declare war, single-handed, upon Japan. That, of course, is not the case, but we would like our Government to announce that it would be willing to boycott all Japanese goods, provided that a sufficient number of other countries did the same, and we would like our Government to press that policy upon the rest of the world at Geneva and elsewhere.

Perhaps I may say a few words about the supposed inconsistency of a free trader who supports sanctions. We hate tariffs and all trade barriers, because we believe that they are the greatest single cause of world poverty and unemployment; but there are some issues which, in our opinion, are higher than wealth or employment. One of them is this: When we believe, rightly or wrongly, that a certain policy is likely to promote peace we will not be deflected from supporting that policy merely because it can be shown to us that that policy would temporarily inconvenience trade or reduce employment.
Let me now come to the details of the Bill itself. The Bill follows very closely the machinery of the existing Merchandise Marks Act. It provides that on the application to the President of the Board of Trade of any persons who seem to him to be representative of a sufficient section of the public the President of the Board of Trade may appoint a committee to report to him as to whether there does in fact exist a substantial public demand for the making of an Order that goods imported from any foreign country shall be marked with the precise name of that country, and to report whether that demand is such as to make it desirable to make the Order in accordance with the demand, in spite of any inconvenience or prejudice that may be caused to British trade. If the President decides to make the Order it has to be confirmed by an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
The whole of the machinery of the existing Act which makes provision for all difficult cases is incorporated, as, for instance, when the nature of the goods makes it impossible for them to carry a mark. The Bill is hedged around with safeguards, so much so that two hon. Members of the Labour party who have been so good as to allow me to associate their names with the Bill have indicated that they would have preferred a rather


more drastic Measure. They support this Bill for what it is, but they would have liked more. I thank them for their support, and I hope to be able to convince them that my moderation is wise, because I hope that they will believe me when I state that I am not introducing this Bill by way of a propaganda demonstration. I would have introduced a more drastic Bill for that purpose. If leave is given to introduce the Bill and it passes, it will operate without notice. One word about the question of time and of notice. In the last resort the shopkeeper and trader will be responsible for seeing that Japanese goods are not sold unless marked "Japan." Therefore, there will arise the question of time and notice to them. That matter will fall to be considered by the committee which considers the Bill, and by this House. I make only one suggestion now. Perhaps the committee and the House will not think it necessary to give a protracted period of notice, because if leave is given to-day to introduce the Bill and if the Bill moves forward, that in itself will act as notice to importers, wholesalers and retailers, of the conditions on which Japanese goods may come to be offered to the public. Traders will, therefore, consider what is the likelihood of their being obliged at some time to mark Japanese goods with the word "Japanese." Of those whose minds are inclined against the Bill I would ask this question. Quite apart from any question as to the desirability of a world boycott of Japanese goods through Government action—

Sir John Withers: Why only Japanese goods? Why not apply the Bill to every country?

Mr. Acland: My Bill is entirely impartial. The operation of the Bill will depend on whether there is a public opinion applying to one country or another. I was mentioning Japan, because it seems to me that in the existing state of public opinion Japan is the most likely country in regard to which there might be the greatest public demand for the operation of the Bill. Apart from the question of Government boycott, I ask, is it legitimate for a private citizen to desire that, as far as his private purchases are concerned, those purchases are not to be used in such a way as to swell the finances with which Japan is now carrying on an unofficial war unanimously

condemned as a war of unprovoked aggression, and which has been, and is, accompanied by acts of unprecedented inhumanity. If that desire is legitimate, and if after inquiry by a committee it is found to be a widespread desire, ought not this House, in the interest of democracy, to give opportunities for the people who feel that desire to express their desire in a practical way?

Mr. H. G. Williams: When I saw on the Paper the notice about this Bill, I wondered what was in the mind of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland). I took some part in helping to pass into law the existing Merchandise Marks Act, and I also had the privilege for a year and a half of administering it. During that time we could always rely on the complete opposition of the Liberal party to any proposals for marking. In those circumstances, when I find a Member of the Liberal party proposing a Bill like this, I am bound to examine it with care, though it is a little difficult to appreciate the Clauses of a Bill that is not yet printed. I have, however, endeavoured to follow the speech of the hon. Member with such care as I could, and I am inclined to think that this Bill is based on a discrimination which is in conflict with our international treaty, also that it is desirable in this world of dishonesty to set a good example, and that as a necessary condition precedent to the introduction of this Bill, which intends a discrimination against a particular country, we should first of all clear the decks by having the treaty denounced. Until then it would really be rather dishonest for this House to pass legislation to which effect cannot be given. In those circumstances I suggest that it is perhaps undesirable to give leave to introduce the Bill, and that the hon. Gentleman should obtain, by answers to questions put to the Foreign Secretary, the necessary assent for the treaty of commerce between this country and Japan to be denounced.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Acland, Mr. Mander, Mr. Foot, Mr. W. Roberts, Mr. Vyvyan Adams, Mr. Noel-Baker, Mr. Cartland, and Lieut.-Commander Fletcher.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to require an indication of origin in the case of certain goods imported into


the United Kingdom from foreign countries," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 89.]

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HALIFAX) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDKR (NUNEATON EXTENSION) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills with Report on the Bill.

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PRO CEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.

Copy presented, of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, that they are of opinion (1) that the following Order, namely, the Caledonian Power Order, raises questions of public policy of such novelty and importance that it ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order; (2) that, save as aforesaid, the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as they may hereafter make with respect to the several Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to disregard items of labour costs in certain circumstances.)

If, upon any application for the registration of a film under Part III of this Act, being an application in connection with which it is material to ascertain—

(a) the labour costs of the film, or
(b) the proportion of those costs which represents payments in respect of the labour or services of persons of any particular class,

it appears to the Board of Trade that any sum which, as part of those costs, is paid or payable in respect of the labour or services of any particular person is so great as not to be a bona fide payment by way of remuneration for the labour or services in question, the Board may direct that the said sum shall, as to the whole or any part of the amount thereof, be disregarded in ascertaining the said labour costs or the said proportion thereof, as the case may be.— [Captain Wallace.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will, perhaps, have observed with some surprise that the Parliamentary Secretary is standing at this Box instead of the President of the Board of Trade to introduce the first new Clause. My right hon. Friend has asked me to convey his apology to hon. Members in all quarters of the House for his unavoidable absence due to illness. He has been unwell and under doctor's orders for several days, and to-day has been forbidden to attend the House. He very much regrets that he cannot be present in person when a Bill which has had such careful and meticulous examination comes before the House. Although I am fortified by the support of a Cabinet Minister and of a Law Officer, I ask the House in these circumstances to give me the most generous treatment.

This new Clause is designed to give effect to a promise made in the Standing Committee at an early stage. I think the promise was made to the hon. Lady who sits for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). The promise was that during the subsequent stages of the Bill we would attempt to

tighten up the definition of "labour costs" in order to meet as far as possible any loophole for evasion. The hon. Lady asked my right hon. Friend in Committee whether he was aware that it was possible by bookkeeping transactions, by the employment of highly-paid technicians or artists, to swell the labour costs in the production of a film, and she asked that the provision as to labour costs should be strengthened. It has been suggested in the Press and elsewhere that this provision in regard to total costs might be evaded by large sums being paid by the maker of the films to members of his own family who constitute the artists and technicians employed in the making of the film. Another suggestion has been that the producer or technician might form a company to produce a film and cause the company to pay him a high salary for his services but return to the company the greater portion of the amount that he received. A film, made under such bookkeeping conditions, might well show a total labour cost of over £7,500 and therefore qualify for quota, while it really would not have cost anything like that at all, and might well be sold at a profit for £5,000 or £6,000, becoming in effect another "quota quickie"—the one thing, as hon. Members will remember, that this Bill is intended to destroy.

The Clause gives the Board of Trade power, in cases where they are not satisfied that the payments made for labour are in fact bonâ fide payments to a person for the services which he performs in respect of that particular film, to disallow the whole or part of the amount from the total labour costs of the film, and, therefore, to disqualify it for quota. The same power of disallowance of payments which are considered not to have been made in good faith will also be given by the Clause in cases where the prescribed percentage of labour costs is required to be paid to British subjects—as for a British film—or to persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom in the case of a film qualifying for renters' quota. We believe that this Clause will serve to avoid evasion of the cost test, and I hope the House will accept it with acclamation.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May I, first of all, echo the sentiment expressed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman concerning


the absence of the President of the Board of Trade We all very much regret it, not only because of the illness from which he is suffering, but also because of the profound knowledge of this Measure which he has acquired during the past few months, and we should have welcomed his presence here to-day.
With regard to the new Clause, we are in entire agreement with the sentiment and the spirit of it. We want to see this question of labour costs tightened up. Is it the intention of the appropriate body, when any producer seeks registration of a film, to ask to see the books and documents to ascertain whether the labour provisions have been fully observed, or do they only intend to make this investigation in an occasional case— perhaps one film in five or ten? The Clause looks very well indeed on the paper, but I should like to know exactly how they intend to carry it out. Once the application for registration is made, the Board of Trade will have to be satisfied that the cost section has been fully complied with, and my question, therefore, is a very simple one: Will they ascertain that in every case all the conditions have been fulfilled, or will they only make this particular inquiry in respect to a film here and there? We ought to know that, because unless we do, we shall not know exactly who is to be responsible for ascertaining the rights or wrongs of the actions of producers and whether or not a film will be registered before the sanction has been obtained. What is to happen if some film has been registered and subsequently, after it has been shown round the country, it is found that the conditions have not been fulfilled? The primary question, however, is, When will they make their inquiries with regard to the labour costs, as to whether or not all the conditions have been fulfilled?

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I too am very sorry that the President is not able to be here today, and I hope it may be possible for him to come to-morrow. I hope also that his absence does not mean that we shall be placed at any disadvantage and that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not be just as free to grant any concessions that may appear to us to be reasonable and necessary as if the President himself were in his place. I feel

sure, supported as he is by such high talent on both sides of him, that we can look for reasonable and favourable treatment. I think this is a very sound Clause, because undoubtedly every effort will be made by the interests concerned— American renters and others—to evade the Act if they can, and it is desirable that provisions should be contained in the Bill to prevent such evasion. Is it the intention of the Board of Trade—it says, "If it appears to the Board of Trade"—to make use of the machinery of the Films Council? Upon what evidence are they going? It seems to me that it would be far better as a matter of practice to refer all these questions to those who will be devoting their minds continuously to all the details of the problem and I hope the Minister will be able to say that it is the intention to use the machinery of the Films Council to obtain this information.

4.24 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I should first like to thank the two hon. Members who have spoken for what they have said about my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and to say that I am fully seized of his views on this Bill, and that I am afraid I shall be able to be neither more pliable nor more adamant than if he were present. The examination of these labour costs will be made by the Board of Trade, and, of course, it will be a Board of Trade responsibility to see that the cost conditions have been complied with. If it subsequently transpires that those conditions have not been complied with, I think the position would arise, that if that had occurred through any misstatement of the person who applied for registration, there is provision in another part of the Bill for dealing with such a case. I think hon. Members may take it that the Board of Trade are determined to see that these provisions, which are an essential feature of the Bill, are complied with in a proper manner.
As regards what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, it seems to me that this is not a matter in which really the Films Council should be involved. The question of whether a certain sum of money has been spent on the labour costs of a film or whether a certain proportion of that sum has been paid either to British subjects or to people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom,


is a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion, and I think it might well be dealt with in the Department.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: This Clause is an instance of the reasons for the new Clause that will be moved later on by my hon. Friend. We have always been seized with the need for closely watching the administration of this Measure when it becomes an Act. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that there is no question about it—and facts came out during the proceedings in Committee—that there are practices in reference to labelling as labour costs certain people, and there are certain methods which were agreed during the Committee stage to be highly discreditable methods. The Board of Trade is going to watch this matter, but there is to be a Films Council set up, the chairman of which will be a full-time man. Is it only to be at the discretion of the Board of Trade, when it thinks there is something wrong in reference to labour costs, that the matter will be raised? According to this new Clause that is so, and while the Clause is an improvement upon what has previously been the practice, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that those who are employed in this industry have very grave disquietude about the methods of arriving at labour costs.
Will the Films Council be empowered to deal with this matter as well as with the items that they are set up to deal with? It will need very close examination. It is not a question of offhand investigation or of investigation being made merely from time to time at the discretion of the Board of Trade. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, as every Member who sat in the Committee knows, that there are very serious reasons for close examination of the facts concerning the labour costs of every film, and I hope he will tell us that it is the intention of the Board of Trade, not merely to rely upon some report that comes to it haphazard, but to use the machinery of the Films Council for very close investigation of the matter.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister also give the House an assurance as to when the labour costs are to be investigated? Will it be previous to the application for

registration being sent in, or between that time and the time when the film is registered? It is very important, not only for the House but for the trade itself, to know this.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Hall-Caine: Is not this new Clause only an extension of powers already possessed by the Board of Trade in regard to whether a film has complied with a certain Section of the Act under which 75 per cent. of the labour employed must be British and 25 per cent. of the cost thereof may be foreign? During the whole 10 years of the operation of the Act I think only one or two mistakes of that character have arisen and only one or two films have been wrongly registered. Therefore it shows, I think, that the officials of the Board of Trade have been exceedingly careful in examining the figures presented to them by the film producers before they have registered films. I do not think the House need have any doubt that the officials of the Board of Trade will carry out the duties given to them under this Clause in an exact manner and satisfactory to those concerned.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to. Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Film Commission.)

(1) With a view to the better organisation and development of the film industry in the United Kingdom, there shall be constituted a Commission to be called the "Films Commission," hereinafter referred to as "the Commission."

(2) The Commission shall consist of a chairman and not less than two or more than four other members who shall be appointed by the Board of Trade. All the members shall be entirely independent of any professional or pecuniary interest in any branch of the cinematograph film industry and shall devote their whole time to their duties as such members.

(3) The functions of the Commission shall be—

(a) to carry into effect and administer the provisions of this Act subject to the overriding authority of the Board of Trade;
(b) to make representations to the Board of Trade and to draft regulations for submission to the Board of Trade in respect of all matters affecting the film industry.

(4) The powers of the Commission shall be—

(a) to make regulations for governing its own proceedings and for delegating so far as may be necessary its functions to certain of its individual members or to its officers;


(b) to prescribe such fees as are laid down in the Second Schedule to this Act;
(c) to hold such enquiries as it considers necessary or desirable for the discharge of any of its functions;
(d) to recommend to the Minister the initiation of proceedings in respect of infringements of the provisions of this Act;
(e) to set up a viewing panel for the purposes of Section twenty-six of this Act and for examination of films in respect of all applications for registration for renters' quotas;
(f) to recommend to the Board of Trade such alterations of quotas as are provided for under Section fifteen of this Act;
(g) to consult whenever necessary with the advisory committee referred to in Section thirty-nine of this Act;
(h) to do all such matters and things as are necessary for the exercise of the functions of the committee.

(5) The period of office of members shall be three years subject to re-appointment.

(6) The Commission shall make to the Board of Trade, as soon as may be after the end of the year beginning at the commencement of of this Act and each subsequent year, a report of the proceedings of the Commission during the year, and a review of the progress of the cinematograph films industry in Great Britain, with particular reference to that branch of the said industry which is engaged in the making of films.

(7) The Board of Trade shall, upon receiving any draft regulations submitted under Subsection (4) of this Section, forthwith cause the same to be published in the Gazette and in such other manner best adapted to inform the persons affected, a notice of their intention to consider the making of the said regulations. The said notice shall contain—

(a) information of the place where the draft regulations may be inspected and copies thereof obtained;
(b) a statement that the Board are prepared to receive and consider any objection to the proposed regulations which may be made in writing within the period of one month from the publication of such notice.

(8) Within the period of two months from the publication of such notice the Board shall after consultation with the Commission consider any such objections so made and shall make such regulations as they may think proper. All regulations so made shall be laid before Parliament so soon as may be after they are made.

If either House of Parliament within the next thirty days on which that House has sat after there is laid before it any regulation under this Section resolves that the regulation be annulled the regulation shall thereupon tease to have effect, without prejudice, however, to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The question of a small independent commission was debated fairly fully on the Second Reading of the Bill. In Committee we had a prolonged Debate on the wisdom or unwisdom of a small independent commission or a much larger council consisting of 11 independent members and 10 members representing various sections of the trade. Although we discussed the two things jointly, the new Clause on the Order Paper was not discussed at any length. We do not desire to prolong the Debate upon this important, and, as I regard it, vital question, but there are justifiable reasons why we should return to the subject. I am not yet convinced that a council of 21 persons will be the best kind of body to follow the surreptitious movements in this highly complex industry. We maintained in Committee that the Moyne Committee were right when they recommended a small independent commission which should constantly keep under review the various movements of this industry. Hon. Members know by now that we have British producers and foreign importers, renters and exhibitors, and very often we find the producer is a renter and also an exhibitor, that the importer is a British producer and a renter, and all kinds of combinations of interests.

Unless the industry be kept under review by a body permanently engaged to do that particular job, we may not get the best industry we are entitled to expect, and the Board of Trade may not be able to get as rapidly as they ought to be able, information about the quick moves and quick changes that take place in this industry. We have on our side the Moyne Committee, who heard evidence from all sections of the industry and from those in any way familiar with the subject, and they recommended that a commission be established. The newspapers, which are regarded as authoritative with regard to questions of national importance, are almost without exception in favour of a small commission as compared with the larger council. In anything we may say concerning a small commission we always have it in our minds that an advisory committee of the interests should be available for consultation with the commission. We notice that the "Times," the "Sunday Observer,"


the "Liverpool Post," the "Daily Telegraph," the "Scotsman," the "Financial News," the "Manchester Guardian," the "Daily Sketch," and the "Daily Herald" have come down heavily on the side of the small commission. It may be that newspapers are rarely right, but surely they are not all wrong in this vital particular.

I regret the absence of the President of the Board of Trade, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill, that there is still time for his right hon. Friend to reconsider this question. If powers such as are embodied in this new Clause, with extensions if need be, were given to this small commission, the commission would be able to administer the Act on behalf of the Board of Trade, keep constantly in touch with any sudden movements that may be made and generally to do the kind of work for which commissions have been set up for livestock, sugar, and various other purposes within recent months. It may be argued that the larger the body administering the Act the better for the administration, but that surely does not always follow. I should have thought that three or five persons permanently employed and paid reasonably large salaries, men of high character entirely disinterested in the industry, would be able not only to guide the President of the Board of Trade, but, to a large extent, guide the industry itself, and finally restore to the industry that lost confidence, which means money and stability, and more British pictures, and, perhaps, better pictures than we have been having.

I will not spend time in comparing the powers embodied in the new Clause with the powers granted to the cinematograph Films Council under Clause 39. It is a mere detail for the purposes of this discussion what the two sets of powers are. Obviously, however, whether it is a council or a commission, it rests with the Board of Trade to see that it has such powers as will enable it fully to administer the Act in the best interests of the producing side of the industry, and in the direction of giving effect to the desire expressed by the President on Second Reading. I do not not want to go through the various functions laid down. My argument is based exclusively on the wisdom or otherwise of appointing

a small commission to be permanently engaged watching every move, advising the Board of Trade, drafting regulations and orders where they are necessary, and generally keeping in far closer touch with the industry than has been the case during the past 10 years.

We argued this at length in Committee and we have reargued it in our own minds since the Committee stage. We are still satisfied that three or five men will be better than 21. Twenty-one looks too much like a general meeting. I hope that the President has given the Parliamentary Secretary power, if the House deems it wise, to change the council into a small commission and to allow it to be decided without applying a rigorous whip. We noted in Committee upstairs that Members of the Government who spoke in favour of a commission voted against it in the Division. The Government Whip had been brought to bear and it was a very effective whip. If the House feels that the Committee made a mistake, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will allow the House to repair it and establish a commission and provide an advisory body, so that the Board of Trade will at all times have the advice and guidance of those connected with the producing, renting and exhibiting side. The smaller body will be able to do that job very effectively.

Mr. Morgan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether paragraph (b) of Subsection (3) of the new Clause would cover the regulations of hours of employés in cinemas? One of the worst features of the cinema world to-day is the long and strangling hours which cinema employés have to work, and it is high time that there was some regulation.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman has followed the discussions in Committee, he will have found that there was a new Clause dealing with labour conditions, wages and that kind of thing which, unfortunately, could not be moved. We were assured, however, that those matters would be dealt with later. They are not necessarily affected by this new Clause. The question we are debating is simply whether we shall have a small independent commission of not less than three or more than five to administer the Act and to be the eyes and ears of the Board of Trade, in place of a film


council of 21. I hope that the Government will favour the commission and dispense with Clause 39 and the council of 21.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Mander: This new Clause is put down as the result of the discussion which took place in Committee and it puts the views of those who, I think, if a free vote had been taken, would have been a majority of the Committee. We have to make a choice between two different kinds of bodies. We ought to be guided as in all these matters by the report of the Moyne Committee, which at great length went into the whole of this tangled problem and made definite recommendations as to what they thought was the most effective way of dealing with the question. On page 35 of their report they recommended that a new body, which might be called the Films Commission, should be set up and made responsible for the administration of the Act. They went on to recommend that the commission should consist of a chairman and not less than two or more than four other members who need not necessarily be on a whole-time basis. We feel that it will be a difficult job to watch the operations of this Measure and to see that it is not evaded. That can be effectively done only by people who are concentrating the whole of their attention upon it and becoming experts. Under the council there would be 11 independent members who, to some extent, would be concentrating their minds upon it, but they are large in number and, if it is to be a part-time job, most of them can become only partial experts. They will have associated with them a large body of ten trade representatives who will know all about it.
It seems to us far better to follow the technique which is usual in these days, and which the Government have adopted in a number of Acts, and are adopting in the Sea Fish Bill which is now before the House. In that Bill there is a small commission exactly similar in its functions and ideas to the proposal now put forward. I should like to know what other Act there is in which there is a mixed commission of 21 persons. I understand the idea is that it will really be the independent members, and possibly only a number of them, who will be paid much attention to by the Board of Trade. They will be regarded as the people who really matter

and not the trade representatives. If that is so, let us have a limited number of them who are far more likely to take their duties seriously, who will be much more accessible, rather than a large number of part-time people. I feel sure that sooner or later we shall get to that stage when we must have this small commission. It will be subject to Parliament, advisory, not able to operate on its own motion except through the Board of Trade, and will give the expert guidance and advice required in the complicated problems of the industry. I think it is highly probable that the Films Council itself will in due course make a recommendation, and that at a subsequent stage legislation op these lines will be brought forward. It is difficult enough to see how this Bill is to be of great assistance to the industry even as it is. I can find very few people in the trade who think it will do any good at all, but it is far more likely to succeed if we set up this highly businesslike body, which will be able to get the maximum of good out of this legislation.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Denville: I should like to ask the hon. Member what is really meant by the statement
to make representations to the Board of Trade and to draft regulations for submission to the Board of Trade in respect of all matters affecting the film industry.
Does he mean the entire film industry—

Mr. Mander: Certainly.

Mr. Denville: —from the production right down to the pay box? The two things are altogether different.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the hon. Member must know that you cannot wholly divorce the production from the exhibition.

Mr. Denville: Are you going to put the actor and the stage manager in the same category, to put under the same rules and regulations the man touring the country and the permanent man? If so, the whole thing will be chaotic. The only difference in the film industry is that here the actors go round in tin cans.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: When the suggestion of a Film Commission was discussed on Second Reading there were Members on this side of the House who uttered a word


of warning against it being a Commission similar to the Unemployment Assistance Board, but on this side of the House we were unanimous that this Clause ought to be carried. In Committee an Amendment was introduced which set up a Films Council of 21 persons, 11 of whom are to have no interest of a pecuniary kind in the industry and 10 of whom are to represent the various interests. I think the future will show that with a Council of that size and with such conflicting interests it will not be possible for the film industry to make the progress it would make under an independent body. There is scarcely an industry in which there is more conflict of interests than in the film industry. There are producers, renters, exhibitors—

Mr. Day: And financiers.

Mr. Smith: —and financiers, who are mixed up in one or all of the three divisions. Therefore, I think the case for a Film Commission as suggested in this Clause is almost unanswerable. This House has some responsibility towards the film industry. There is nothing today which does more, perhaps, to mould public opinion than the cinema, and Parliament ought to have some little say about the industry. I do not mind saying as a cinema-goer that I have heard some politicians speaking from the screen who provided neither good entertainment nor anything else; but that is by the way. Let us examine one or two of the objections to this Films Council. The present Act—not this Bill—has been in operation for 10 years. A committee presided over by Lord Moyne made very definite statements as to what ought to be done in the future. Paragraph 100 of their report states:
We recommend that the Commission should consist of a chairman and not less than two, or more than four, other members who need not all necessarily be on a whole-time basis. They would be appointed by the Government for specified periods and would be represented in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown or in some other appropriate way. We contemplate that the members of the Commission should be adequately-paid persons whose suitability for their task is unimpeachable.
The Bill is based largely on the report of this Committee, but in this matter the Government have entirely ignored it. One argument put forward in Committee was that they could not get agreement in this

complicated industry for a small independent commission. Can any hon. Member tell me whenever vested interests in any industry have welcomed interference or supervision from outside? In spite of that the House has on many occasions appointed commissions to deal with industries, even when the owners opposed that course. Another argument was that there was agreement among the various interests for the Films Council as laid down in Clause 39 of the Bill. Those who represent the workers in the industry, though they agreed to the council, were in favour of an independent commission, and only agreed to the provisions of Clause 39 when they were assured that there was no chance of the Government setting up an independent commission. I think I can say with truth that those who represent the workers would favour now a small independent commission.

Mr. Morgan: The Mover of the Clause distinctly said that his proposal did not touch the workers or the hours of employment.

Major Procter: What is meant by "independent"? Is it suggested that there should be no trade union representatives?

Mr. T. Smith: I hesitate to answer the hon. Member, because I know that he knows better. He has such an interest in the cinematograph industry that I know that he has read the report of the Moyne Committee, and he will know that the committee stated definitely what they wanted done. The hon. Member can find an answer to his question in the Moyne Committee's Report.

Major Procter: I am as much interested in the workers as the hon. Member himself, and the point I want to bring out is this: If there is an independent committee how will you get trade union representation in the industry.

Mr. T. Smith: The position is that we are dealing here with a comparatively new industry which has proved to be entirely unsatisfactory from the point of view of British production, and if we are going to appoint a commission of independent men, say two, or not more than five, it is not a question of representation of interests. This is a question of men of experience and suitability being appointed to concentrate upon what is best for the cinematograph industry and to


carry out the duties laid down in this new Clause. The point I was making was that we had been told that we were asking for a commission even though the workers' representatives were prepared to accept the Films Council, and I wanted to make it clear that they would have preferred, to put it no higher, an independent body. If there were an independent body there could be an advisory committee advising the Board of Trade on certain matters. This is, as it were, a supervising committee, a committee not in the hands of financiers or concerned with renters, but working simply for what is best for the cinematograph industry. I hope the House will declare in no uncertain manner that a commission should be established.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I should have been inclined to give some measure of support to the Clause if the Mover had explained what it was all about. In the discussion upstairs some of us pointed out that, after all, this new Clause does not mean anything very definite. There is no magic about the word "commission." We might as well call this the Films Council and the other one the commission. No one has the faintest idea how the Clause would work, and I do not believe in calling into being anything which cannot be operated. What is meant by paragraph (a)?
To carry into effect and administer the provisions of this Act subject to the overriding authority of the Board of Trade.
They meet and come to certain conclusions, and then have to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether they accord with his overriding authority. They are to be independent persons. If that is all that is wanted we need not create such a body at all. The Board of Trade employ a number of very competent civil servants. The President has overriding authority over them and they have no interests in the industry. They could make all the regulations necessary with much greater capacity than inexperienced gentlemen on such a commission. We should have there the whole machinery without appointing a commission at all. We are merely proposing to set up five new civil servants. That is all.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the hon. Member say why he supported the establishment of a Sugar Commission of some 12 persons, none of them civil servants, when

there are so many competent civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, and why he supported the establishment of the Livestock Commission, consisting of approximately a dozen members, when there are so many competent civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. H. G. Williams: First of all, I did not support the Sugar Commission. I thought it was deplorable by Act of Parliament to create such a monopoly. I gave no support to that Bill at any time. So that point does not arise. The Livestock Commission have very clear-cut and defined powers. They have not the power to administer the whole of an Act of Parliament. The powers which are given to them are clearly defined in the Act. On the other hand the proposed Films Commission is to have the function of carrying into effect and administering the provisions of this Measure,
subject to the over-riding authority of the Board of Trade.
That is something which cannot be carried into effect at all except on the assumption that these persons bear the same relationship to the President of the Board of Trade as five civil servants would bear. If we examine paragraph (b) we find that everything in it is already covered by Clause 39 (2, a). The whole of the paragraphs (a) to (h), so far as they mean anything, are already covered by Clause 39 (2), except—

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the proposed new Clause is in substitution of Clause 39?

Mr. Williams: Oh no, it is not. If the hon. Gentleman will read what he is supporting, and particularly paragraph (g), he will see that the proposed commission would have to consult, whenever necessary,
with the advisory committee referred to in Section thirty-nine of this Act.
There is no advisory committee under Clause 39.

Mr. Mander: It is quite true that the wording might not be perfect, but the proposed new Clause is quite clearly in substitution of Clause 39.

Mr. Williams: I am assuming that the authors of the Clause are proposing a serious Amendment of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will listen to me


and read this proposal, because he supports it. He says that Clause 39 is to go, but paragraph (g) says that the films commission will have to consult the advisory committee mentioned in Clause 39. If he looks at the Order Paper, the hon. Member will find that, while there are Amendments to Clause 39, none of them proposes to leave out the Clause. He is therefore supporting the proposed new Clause under a misapprehension. Not only that, but this body is referred to as the Cinematograph Films Council—

Mr. Mander: Will he take it from me that those who are responsible for the Clause have the deliberate intention that this should take the place of Clause 39, although there may be imperfections in the drafting of the proposed new Clause, owing to changes subsequently made in the Bill. It is therefore really a waste of time to argue about it.

Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that after we have had lengthy Debates in Committee those who are in charge of the proposed new Clause have not put down the consequential Amendments upon the Order Paper? It is treating the House of Commons with disrespect to say that there is a whole lot of things they have not thought of.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member is also treating the House of Commons with disrespect. The original new Clause was put upon the Order Paper when Clause 39 contained what was purely an advisory committee of interested persons. Amendments were made in Committee which turned the advisory committee into a Cinematograph Films Council, and made an addition to it of 11 so-called independent members. The hon. Member knows all about that. It is because of the generosity of Mr. Speaker in calling this Clause that we are debating it. Some of us never expected that it would be called. The hon. Member is wasting time in what he knows to be pure burlesque.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I now understand the position of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He knew that this new Clause had not the slightest chance and he never thought that Mr. Speaker would select it, so he did not think it worth while to tidy up the wording so that it would read intelligibly. Yet

he seriously asked the House to debate a new Clause to which he attaches such trifling importance that he does not even draft it properly or put down consequential Amendments to another Clause; and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is so little interested in it that he did not read it before he made his speech. In the circumstances I do not think there is anything for me either to burlesque or to waste the time of myself or of anybody else in the House upon.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: Although the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has just made play with one of the Sub-sections of the proposed new Clause, and not without reason, I must say, he has not dealt with the principle of it. Surely it is not above the wit of this House a little later on in the Debate to devise a means whereby we could put the new Clause into trim, if the House passes it. I want to deal with the principle, because that is what hon. Members must apply their minds to in this discussion. The right hon. and gallant Member who, I take it, will reply, should give us very sound and solid reasons why it is, when a committee or a commission of investigation is set up, the Government Department responsible, when introducing its subsequent Bill, entirely neglects to take the advice of that body, which has thoroughly investigated the matter and has had before it all the expert witnesses.
I thought that the President of the Board of Trade did not give us those sound reasons in Committee why we should accept a Films Council which would entirely cut across the recommendations made by the Moyne Committee, who suggested a films commission. On this side of the House we have paid attention to the recommendations of that committee, which were based upon expert evidence, and for that reason we ask the House this afternoon to reverse the decision that was made in Committee. May I call the attention of hon. Members to what happened in Committee when we discussed the question. First of all the President of the Board of Trade told us the reasons why he wanted us to adopt the proposal of a films council. I should like to read his words, which were:
There will be differences between the various sections, and the report will not be unanimous. But I do not believe that is a very great disadvantage. Obviously the


important thing from the point of view of the person who has to consider whether or not he is going to take the advice of this Committee will be the view which the independent members have taken of the subject discussed before them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 23rd November, 1937; col. 74.]
So there we have it. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that when he is asked to take action on some recommendation of this Films Council under Clause 39, he will pay particular attention, the most important attention, not to the 10 representatives appointed by the various sections of the industry but to the 11 independent members. Surely it should be obvious that if he is to be guided in his decisions in administering this Measure during the next 10 years by the views of the 11 independent members of the Films Council, it would be far better that we cut out the trade members and got down to an independent commission such as my hon. Friend is advocating this afternoon.
There is another reason. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the Committee he always seemed to have a worried look on his face. We never knew from Committee to Committee whether he would throw over his previous arguments and suggest something new. Why was that? He told us that from 12 o'clock one day until 11 o'clock next morning he did not know whether the trade would come to him with an entirely fresh set of suggestions. That should indicate to the House that the proposed Council will be confronted with a similar set of circumstances. If the President of the Board of Trade is to have a worried look all through the Committee stage of the Bill what is to happen to the Films Council during the 10 years it will be administering this Measure and advising the President of the Board of Trade? Under another portion of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade is making provision for a quality test of certain films in certain conditions. I suggest that the Films Council will not be the appropriate body to give a quality test to films. If we are to have that, and apparently we are, because the right hon. Gentleman introduced that feature in Committee, another argument for the proposed new Clause surely is that we should have an independent commission composed of a very few people, who are entirely unconnected with the industry but are nevertheless

able to ask for the advice of all interested persons and of all those who claim to have knowledge of the industry.
In the absence of any solid reason to the contrary from the Minister, the strongest argument that we could put forward this afternoon is that under other Acts of Parliament, like the Livestock Industry Act and the Beet Sugar Industry Act, the Government have set up independent bodies to control the industries and to advise the Minister. That is the most satisfactory argument that could be adduced this afternoon, unless the Minister can come to that Box and give us good solid reasons why these specific recommendations of the Moyne Report are being ignored.

5.11 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I do not propose to take the same line as has been taken by some of my hon. Friends and, despite any errors or omissions there may be in the actual presentation of the proposed new Clause, I shall try to deal with it reasonably briefly upon its merits. My right hon. Friend realises that a very large portion of our time has been expended upon the major question of whether there should be on the one hand a small independent body of experts with very wide powers practically running the industry, or, on the other hand, an advisory committee on which the industry would be represented, advising the President of the Board of Trade. It is only due to hon. Members who may not have given a very great deal of thought to this matter that I should rehearse some of the arguments which induced the President of the Board of Trade to oppose the present proposal.
The Committee presided over by Lord Moyne, to whom once again I should like to pay tribute, did, it is true, recommend in November, 1936, that there should be what they called a films commission, with a chairman, plus two to four other persons, all independent of the industry. That commission was to have, in the words of the Moyne Report, powers of initiative and control. I must admit that those powers appeared to the Board of Trade to be somewhat nebulous; nevertheless, the Board of Trade submitted the whole of the report to the film industry in December, 1936, and invited the views of the industry upon it. At that time, all sections of the industry disliked this particular


recommendation. In fact, it is not too much to say that when the industry first saw the Moyne Report, each section of the industry said it would prefer to have trade representation upon this body, whatever it was. The Board of Trade, I think in the person of the present Minister of Transport, made an appeal last March to all sections of the film industry to try to agree upon a policy. No one doubts for a moment that if it had been possible for the industry to agree upon a policy and had it been able to produce more or less its own Bill, our labours would have been considerably curtailed, and the chances are that we should have an even better Bill than this Bill will be.
The fact remains that the sections of the industry could not come to an agreement. Representatives of the sections did get as far as a sort of draft agreement, but when the draft agreement was taken to the main body, it broke down, because they would not sanction it. They were, however, all agreed that they were against a films commission with powers of initiative and control, and I think the House will appreciate that it is not a very practical proposition to give the initiative and control in the running of an extremely complicated entertainment industry into the hands of a small independent body for whose conduct a Minister of the Crown would be responsible in the House.
My right hon. Friend held a joint meeting with all sections of the industry last June, and he indicated that in his view it would be better that the Board of Trade should continue to be the controlling authority, assisted by an advisory committee. At that time, whatever may have subsequently happened, no section of the industry raised any objection; in fact, I do not think it is too much to say that everybody was quite satisfied that the civil servants at the Board of Trade would probably be the best and most impartial administrators of the Act.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the White Paper on the Government's proposals, Command No. 5529, published just before the House rose for the summer holidays in order, if possible, to let the industry and the rest of the country, as well as hon. Members, know what our plans were, and to

try, if possible, to meet objections in advance. In that Paper these phrases occur:
It has, however, become clear during the discussions which followed the Committee's report that no branch of the industry is prepared to accept a Commission on the lines recommended by the Committee"—
that is to say, the Moyne Committee.
His Majesty's Government feel that the basis of the Committee was that such a Commission would be acceptable to the industry.
I take the view that, if the Moyne Committee had not thought that such a Commission would be acceptable to the industry, they would have said so, and I doubt whether they would have recommended it.

Mr. Mander: Has the Parliamentary Secretary any evidence to show that that was the view of the Moyne Committee?

Captain Wallace: I think it is obvious. The Government's policy embodied two main changes from the scheme envisaged by the Moyne Committee. It had been decided for a number of sound reasons, which were explained in Committee, and will, of course be explained again here, that it would be advisable not to have a viewing test as the sole criterion of quality for registration, but to combine a cost test and a viewing test. That, in the view of my right hon. Friend, made a radical change in the situation, and it no longer seemed necessary to have an independent body since the viewing of films was one of the particular functions which the Moyne Committee suggested the Commission should carry out. The substitution of a fixed schedule of quotas in place of the annual assessment suggested by the Moyne Committee was another reason for the change. I admit that we have gone back in some way towards that annual reassessment, but, at the same time, we thought that the situation had radically changed.
I need not go into all the deputations that we received, or elaborate on the theme touched upon by the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, but one of the greatest difficulties which the Government have had in presenting this Bill to Parliament has been the divergent outlook in the industry, and, even more, the lack of consistency in policy even within sections of the industry themselves. I must, however, point out that, on 3rd November, 1937, very shortly before the


Bill came before the House for Second Reading, my right hon. Friend received a joint deputation of producers, exhibitors and representatives of labour interests, and they all agreed in asking for the establishment of an advisory body, with trade representation, able to consider the whole industry. I do not for a moment wish to traverse what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). He made that point in Committee, and it is perfectly true; but the fact remains that, so far as we knew, it was quite impossible to get agreement upon anything except an advisory body able to consider the whole position of the industry. That is what is in the Bill.
I think I ought to add that there has perhaps been in this Debate a certain amount, not exactly of misunderstanding, but of slurring over of certain sharp edges that must be clearly defined if we are to make sense of the Bill. A number of hon. Members have rather deluded themselves that it is possible to set up an independent council which is really going to have wide powers—the sort of thing proposed in this Clause—and which will really be able to control the industry. I do not think, and I know that my right hon. Friend does not think, that that would be of any use. The film industry, as I have said, is not in our view susceptible to that form of control. One of the strongest arguments for the Government's proposal for associating the trade itself with the Advisory Committee is that it is absolutely essential to get them round a table together to discuss their differences, and to associate the various sections, in so far as they can be associated, with any recommendations that may be made.
Reference has been made to the situation of the independent members, but I think that perhaps a little too much emphasis was laid upon some words which fell from my right hon. Friend in a rather narrower context. I do not think for a moment that the President intends to be guided entirely by the independent members of the Advisory Committee. It is perfectly plain, as a matter of common sense, that, if a majority report and a minority report were received, the side upon which the independent members were ranged would necessarily carry a certain amount of additional weight.

Mr. Bellenger: Not merely a certain amount of additional weight, but, in the President's own words, would be the determining factor as to whether he takes their advice or not.

Captain Wallace: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ought to carry that too far. Obviously, the President must determine whether he takes their advice on the whole merits of the report, and I am certain that no one would expect him to be bound down. In fact, no one but he will know what goes on in his own head in making his determination. It was brought out clearly in Committee that we do not think there is any disadvantage in not getting a unanimous report. That, if I am not mistaken, is one of the arguments against the larger committee, but it is quite possible, when you get any recommendation from this body, to see where everybody is lined up and where their differences and troubles lie. Probably there would be nothing but the seeds of more trouble and discontent, with, it might be, a really disastrous effect on the film industry, if it were to be administered by a small autocratic body which could make a unanimous report to the President that something ought to be done, leaving the President perhaps in blissful but unfortunate ignorance of some of the disadvantages which had to be overcome. Finally, the proposals seems to command but a limited amount of support in the industry, and, therefore, quite apart from the disadvantages of accepting this particular Clause as drafted, I feel that the Government would be absolutely bound to resist it on merits.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The only comfort that the Parliamentary Secretary has brought to us is that the film industry did agree upon something, and the discovery that that was the case must have been rather startling to the Board of Trade. There are many reasons why it is difficult for the industry to agree. The Parliamentary Secretary knows very well that the industry did not bother about the films commission which was recommended by the Moyne Committee, because the Board of Trade made it definitely known, shortly after the report was issued, that they were not going to accept a commission. I submit that that was the real reason why the film industry did not


agree to ask for a commission, and, indeed, representatives of the industry said so. In some parts of the industry there was a tendency to look favourably upon the idea of a commission when we moved a Clause in that regard. When, however, the Bill was before the House, the whole industry was in favour of the Moyne Committee's proposal. My hon. Friend has read out a long list of representative newspapers that were firmly convinced that the only way to make the will of Parliament effective and improve the film industry was by some kind of permanent commission.
The President of the Board of Trade did not agree that it was necessary to have any supplementary body. During the earlier stages of the Bill, his idea was that the Board of Trade should simply administer the Bill with a small committee, as they had done in previous years. He was, however, impressed by public opinion to the extent that in Committee he accepted the Clause establishing a films council. What is the reason for establishing a films council? When the House of Commons originally gave the industry the protection of the quota, it was for the purpose of enabling a film industry to be established in this country.
The film industry itself was actually damaged as a result of the operation of the last Act. The quota was used to such an extent that the reputation of the industry become a matter of scorn. The only contribution they made was to give the country what is known as the "Quickies." Who will say that, if you do not have representatives of the Government, in the form of a permanent films commission, making themselves acquainted with all the ways of this industry in all its diverse activities, we shall not have a repetition in some other form of what has happened in the past? There is great need, in the best interests of this industry, for Parliament to set up some body that will help to save the industry from itself, as well as carrying out the will of Parliament. Here is a memorandum which has been sent to most hon. Members on behalf of the British Council of Film Directors:
Astonishment has been commonly expressed at the fact that the Trade itself cannot reach agreement on some scheme to solve its own problems. It must, however, be remembered that 'the Trade' covers the

many necessarily clashing interests of consumer, distributor and home manufacturer and that there are sub-divisions of interest in each one of these branches of the trade.
They give reasons why there is very strong conflict among these interests. They also say that, by virtue of the quota, the Minister is going to
establish an American monopoly in film production and distribution in this country.
I remember that in Committee we were told by a legal representative on the Government side that they could not get past this Bill, at any rate; that the Bill was watertight. But here a representative of the industry says that, in his opinion, a Bill which is designed to establish a British industry and give it protection, is actually going to establish an American monopoly in film production and distribution in the British market.

Mr. Bracken: Does he give you the arguments to prove that?

Mr. Lawson: Yes. But I mention that only as the opinion of one who is in a position to know. The opinion is widespread in many sections of the industry that in fact the foreign producers will get past this Bill, and that the only result will be that protection will be given to people whom Parliament never intended to protect. The Government say that they will establish a films council to deal with this business. I wonder how often that council will meet. I think the last body met about five times a year; in fact, the whole administration of the Act fell upon the shoulders of about one civil servant, representing the Board of Trade. The Government is now adding one man, a permanent, paid chairman. The ramifications of this industry are so great that it really is necessary to have a body of men set apart to follow up this thing, and to make representations when they think that the people who are to be protected are being overridden, and, when they think that the Act is not being carried out as it should be, to examine the trouble closely. There is an Advisory Committee with certain functions. This Act, to which Parliament has given so much time, with the object of establishing an important industry, with very great influence upon the minds of people, should enable close inquiry to be made, if necessary, as to why the effect of the Act is not being felt, and why certain provisions are being sidetracked. Many Members of this House


will agree that preparations are already being made to get past the Act.
We take this opportunity of warning the House that, in spite of all the time that has been given to it—and the Minister and the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) have given a great deal of time —unless there is somebody to keep a very firm grip on this matter, in the long run the object for which this Bill is being passed will be set at naught, and all our work will be wasted. I would plead for this Amendment to be carried in the interests of the industry itself. It is admitted that there is conflict of opinion within the industry about it, but if Parliament thinks that the industry is sufficiently influential, and of sufficient value, to make it worth while spending time on it and giving it protection, it is surely Parliament's duty, irrespective of what the industry itself thinks, to carry either this Clause or something like it, so that the Department shall appoint their representative to get a grip on the industry and report to the Department, if anything is going wrong, what is going wrong and what should be done about it. Although we are probably going to be beaten in the Lobbies, we think that it will be seen later on that such a body should be set up for the good of not only the industry, but the country itself.

5.41 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: I hope the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will withdraw the Clause. I cannot conceive that you can prevent overlapping and obtain efficiency with two bodies such as he advocates. Surely it would be better that the Advisory Council should be strengthened. There are a certain number of independent members on that Council. If we can separate them from the interests, why should we not give them the extra power which you want to get into the commission under this Amendment? It would be extremely difficult to define the duties of these two bodies. It would mean overlapping and inefficiency, and in the end you would have to get rid of one. Let us concentrate upon increasing the strength and powers of the Advisory Council, and I think we shall then be marching in the right direction.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Day: The truest words that I have heard from the Government Benches were those spoken by the right hon. and gallant Member on the Front Bench, when he said that it was impossible to obtain any agreement between any of the sections of this industry. When this Bill was being discussed in Committee, just after a lengthy Debate I was leaving the Committee room when two very interested and very large members of the trade asked we what had happened. I said that the Government had passed their Motion that there should be a Films Council. I said, "That is the larger body." One of them said, "That is no good; we want the smaller one." The other said, "No, we want what the Government want." So they really did not know what they did want. Coming to the question of what is beneficial to the trade, I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, when he appointed the commission, had more or less made up his mind to adopt, as far as possible, the recommendations of the report. One of the principal recommendations of that report was that there should be a films commission in preference to a Films Council.
Surely the Government will recognise that a large body of 21 would never be able to get any finality or any decision of real benefit to the trade itself. The Government admit that all the interests of the trade cannot come to any decision as to what they want. One hon. Gentleman pointed out what were the interests to be represented. He mentioned the producers, the renters, the exhibitors, the technicians and various others; but he forgot altogether the financiers, who really are considered the angels. They find the money and very seldom see any of it back. As for getting interest on their money, that is hopeless. They seldom see their capital back. They are certain also to have some representation, and I do not see how it can be expected that, in a large body of this kind, there could be any agreement upon what is for the benefit of the trade. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the new Clause.

5.46 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I support the setting up of a commission because I consider that in this industry, which is


very diversified, with many sections of different interests, it is essential that we should have a small body of men sitting continuously and that, after going thoroughly into the industry and having heard all the evidence they require, they should make such recommendations as are necessary. You cannot do this with a body of 21 members. The speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend this afternoon was one of the strongest arguments that could be made for the setting up of this small commission. He told us time after time that the people in the trade could not agree to this, that or the other thing, and they never can agree about anything. These are not the people who are likely to agree upon measures for this industry. He said that they were agreed that they should have an advisory council and not a commission, but I think that, if he asked the trade now, he would find that that is not so and that they would welcome a commission instead of a large advisory council. An advisory council sit only a few times; they do not give their whole time to this matter. The result of the 1927 Act, beneficial as it has been undoubtedly in many ways, has shown serious defects and abuses in practice.
If there had been a commission sitting for the last ten years trying to get hold of the essentials of the film industry in this country in order that it might be made a successful and a good industry, the defects of the industry would not be what they are to-day. We must have a commission, and make it a full-time job. It is a most important industry, not merely from the point of view of making money, but from a national propaganda, cultural and educational point of view. The trade is rather at sixes and sevens. It cannot make up its mind on the important matter of what is best to do for the industry, and I do not think that we shall ever arrive at conclusions in this matter unless we have a small commission as is suggested in this new Clause.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Bracken: I hope that the Government will not accept the suggestion which has been made by my hon. and gallant colleague the Member for South Padding-Ion (Vice-Admiral Taylor), because the hon. Member who spoke from the Labour benches seemed to put extraordinary faith in a commission of three or five

paid bureaucrats. I understand that the Socialist party always like the idea of seeing industry run by three or five paid bureaucrats, but I was very surprised to hear that the representative of the great Liberal party also wishes to have the industry run and controlled by bureaucrats. [Interruption.] I refer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). Where are you going to find these five men? As far as I can understand the idea behind the framers of this proposal, four out of the five must have had no previous experience of the industry and must leam all about the cinema industry at the expense of the public. I heard it suggested that they should be paid high salaries. I do not think the cinema business will flourish because you have four bureaucrats, with a professional chairman, to run it.
I was amazed at one of the arguments of the Socialist party. It was suggested that a council of 21 would be so unwieldy that they could not possibly administer the industry. One of the most important businesses of the country, the Co-operative Wholesale Society, I believe, has 21 or 22 directors. Is it suggested that these directors really are incapable of running the business? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is such an effective and valiant champion of hon. Gentlemen who sit here, once said that the best committee in the world was a committee of two from which one stayed away. It is far better to follow the suggestion of the Government to have a full-time chairman and let him consult from time to time with the independent and professionally engaged gentlemen in this industry. It is pathetic to observe the trust put by various Members in the idea that a commission of five could really revive the cinema industry and that we should have much better pictures with five bureaucrats sitting on top of the industry. The House would be very well advised to follow the suggestion of the Government and not set up a commission of three or five. The industry itself does not want a commission and it is rather undemocratic for the House of Commons to try and shove it down the industry's throat.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: I want to deal with one or two points on this matter, and to suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman the


Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) should revise his opinion with regard to the capacity of people in various walks of life. He made certain remarks with regard to the Co-operative Wholesale Society and those who preside over its destiny. There is a tremendous difference between those individuals and the proposed council. Each one believes in co-operating with the others, and that is why they are successful. We have had no evidence that any of the sections that will be on this council will be imbued with the idea of co-operating with each other at all. It is simply because in the past they have shown such tangible evidence of their inability, if not their lack of desire, to co-operate, that we fear that the council will not produce the advantages which the Government at the present time apparently think they will be able to do. The point I expressed in Committee, but which did not find favour, was not so much connected with the members of the council or the question of independence, but rather with the fact that you will have a council which will report to the Board of Trade, and fears as to whether that report will really be beneficial seem to be more general than one might expext.
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) stated, I think truly, that we had working for us public officials who were eminently suited to make decisions in matters of this description. I am perhaps speaking without the knowledge that he lias, but I have yet to believe that any competent civil servant would ever bring all the conflicting interests together on any matter at one time. They would call them in separately and receive their varying points of view. Therefore, in supporting the commission we are adopting an attitude which should keep separate the conflicting points of view in the industry. They would have to put their points of view to an independent body and allow that body to give a report after having had any conflicting evidence which may be in the industry presented to them separately.
There is another point which I endeavoured to stress upstairs. Two if not three of the sections of the industry are very large organisations, and within each section it is possible that there may be conflicts of opinion. It is quite possible

that the representation of the larger section in the council might not contain a true representation of the opinion of that section of the industry and might not be able to place before the independent members of the council the point of view of the minority of the section they represent. If the independent members were open to receive all representations, it would be possible to place before them majority and minority opinions within each of the sections in the industry. That is the overriding reason which I impressed upon the Government for considering the appointment of a commission as apart from the Council.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I do not propose to discuss the general principle of setting up a commission to control the film industry but only to draw attention to one point. Whatever may be thought of the purpose of this Clause, I personally take some objection to the form in which it is drafted, particularly to certain words which occur in Sub-section (8), which lays it down that:
Within the period of two months from the publication of such notice the Board shall after consultation with the commission consider any such objections so made and shall make such regulations as they may think proper.
That is giving to this commission an unlimited rule-making power. The Board of Trade is to be made the sole judge of what regulations are and are not proper. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, under this form of words to challenge the validity of any regulation that might be made in pursuance of this Clause. I have on many occasions objected to legislation of this kind, even when brought forward from the Government Benches, and I object equally when it comes from this side of the House.

Mr. Bellenger: It says that the regulations shall be laid before the House.

Mr. Foot: I thought that some hon. Member would say that. Of course, regulations have to be laid before the House, but when regulations are laid before the House they are very rarely considered. Although the machinery for the laying of regulations is included in a vast number of Statutes, it is only on very rare occasions that it is possible to get an effective Debate. When we consider regulations, we do not set ourselves up


as a judicial body to consider their validity. We do not decide here whether the regulations ars really necessary or whether they are within the powers that Parliament intended to confer upon the Minister. That is, and must be, a judicial question which must be decided, and can only be properly decided, by a judicial tribunal which hears the evidence and weighs the arguments. That is something which this House never does. This House votes upon the general principles of the regulations and hon. Members vote according to whether they want the Government to be defeated or not. If it were suggested that such regulations should be made by the Board of Trade, with this machinery of inquiry, in order to carry out the purposes which are set out in the Clause, and which it is intended that the commission should fulfil I think that this particular objection would be removed. I am not expressing a view upon the general principle of having a commission. I want to make that clear. I am not differing from my hon. Friend beside me on that point, but, from whatever quarter it comes, I feel the strongest objection to legislation in this form.

6.0 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am very much interested in this discussion, because I have had two experiences of the value of the work of advisory committees. Both the examples which I would quote are in some respects relevant to the arguments that have been used in favour of the proposed new Clause. When I was at the Post Office I had a strong advisory committee, consisting of many and varied interests, who gave varying views of the proposals brought forward from time to time in connection witth the Post Office. I have a similar body at the Ministry of Health in relation to housing work. In both these cases the bodies are composed of the same number suggested in the Bill. At the Post Office a good many interests had to be considered in order that I might get a representative body to advise me.

Mr. Bellenger: They were Britishers.

Sir K. Wood: In the result I can testify that in both the cases of which I have had experience there has not been the difficulties which hon. Members opposite anticipate. The question is whether it is better in connection with the films industry to carry the industry with you in this matter. There is a good deal in the idea of getting people who are associated with the industry round a table together. You are more likely to get better results in that way than if you follow the course suggested by hon. Members opposite of having an administrative body of four or five individuals, who may be regarded as judges or correctors. Hon. Members suggest that certain people will endeavour to get over the provisions of the Act. That depends on how the Bill has been dealt with in committee. If the Act is not satisfactory and is not watertight, then Parliament will have to put the matter right in the future.
The point we have to decide is whether it is better to have a films commission of independent people or an advisory council. I hope hon. Members opposite will realise that there is merit in the course adopted by the Government. If I were in the position of the President of the Board of Trade I should have regard not only to the advice that was being tendered to me, but the source from which the advice came. The advisory council set up in the Bill is probably an improvement upon a good many advisory committees. The President of the Board of Trade will be able to receive two forms of advice, one from the industry itself, and one from independent people, who will be able to give him perhaps a different point of view. For these reasons, and hon. Members opposite having expressed their views, I hope they will see their way to withdraw the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 201.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[6.6 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Banfield, J. W.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Barnes, A. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Batey, J.
Buchanan, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Bellenger, F. J.
Burke, W. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cape, T.


Ammon, C. G
Benson, G.
Charleton, H. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bevan, A.
Chater, D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bromfield, W.
Cluse, W. S.




Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.


Cocks, F. S.
Janes, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton. T. M.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Frankel, D.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gallacher, W.
Lunn, W.
Stephen, C.


Gardner, B. W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
MacLaran, A.
Thorne, W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Grenfell, D. R.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomlinson, G.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mander, G. le M.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, J. (Llanslly)
Marshall, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mathers, G.
Walker, J.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Milner, Major J.
Watson, W. McL.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
White, H. Graham


Hardie, Agnes
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Muff, G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Hayday, A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attereliffe)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hollins, A.
Pearson, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hopkin, D.
Pethick-Lawrance, Rt. Hon. F. W.



Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Albary, Sir Irving
Culverwell, C. T.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
De la Bère, R.
Higgs, W. F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Denville, Alfred
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Davor)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dugdala, Captain T. L.
Holdsworth, H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Duggan, H. J.
Holmes, J. S.


Balniel, Lord
Dunglass, Lord
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Beechman, N. A.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mopkinson, A.


Bernays, R. H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Ellis, Sir G.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Emery, J. F.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Boulton, W. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Bracken, B.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
James, Wing-commander A. W. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Findlay, Sir E.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Bull, B. B.
Foot, D. M.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Furness, S. N.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsay and Otlay)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Cary, R. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Laighton, Major B. E. P.


Channon, H.
Granville, E. L.
Levy, T.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Liddall, W. S.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Loftus, P. C.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gridlay, Sir A. B.
Lyons, A. M.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hambro, A. V.
McKie, J. H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hannah, I. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Harbord, A.
Maitland, A.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Cookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.







Markham, S. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Marsden, Commander A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Touche, G. C.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Rowlands, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Morgan, R. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wakefield, W. W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Salmon, Sir I.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Munro, P.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Selley, H. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Peake, O.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Porritt, R. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Somerset, T.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Procter, Major H. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Radford, E. A.
Spens, W. P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Ramsbotham, H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Storey, S.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rayner, Major R. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.



Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Tate, Mavis C.
Mr. Cross and Mr. Grimston.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Determination of renters' quotas for period beginning 1st April, 1938, and ending 31st March, 1948.)

6.15 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "for that year."
This Amendment and the next three Amendments are consequential on an Amendment to the definition of "renters' quota period" in Clause 42, the definition Clause. Under the Bill as drafted the renters' quota had to be met in periods of one year, but during the discussions upstairs it was decided to reduce the period to six months. It was represented to the Government that during the first year the dislocation, the inevitable consequence of being unable to get the Bill through all its stages until shortly before the beginning of the quota year, might impose on renters a temporary and unjustifiable hardship. Some difficulty might arise in meeting the quota for the period April to September, 1938.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 8, after "Act," insert:
for that period or, as the case may be, for the year beginning with the first day of April in which that period falls.

In line 19, leave out "for that year."

In line 20, after "Schedule," insert:
for that period or, as the case may be, for the year beginning with the first day of April in which that period falls."—[Captain Wallace.]

6.18 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, after "doubled," to insert "or trebled."
I now come to the first of three Amendments which I shall ask the House to consider together. The object of these Amendments is to enable the more expensive type of films, which cost at least £30,000 in respect of labour, to count at treble their length for the purpose of the renters' quota. The detailed provisions with regard to a film counting at treble its length are contained in Subsection (5) of Clause 26. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 which we are now discussing already provides that a film may count as doubled for the purpose of the renters' quota under conditions which are given in Sub-section (5) of Clause 26, and the Amendment is merely designed to give greater choice to renters of foreign films as to the method in which they satisfy the quota. Although the minimum cost of films counting as trebled for renters' quota would be four times the minimum labour costs for single renters' quota, it is proposed that such expensive films shall count three times for the purposes of the quota.
The object of this provision is to assist the production of what may be termed quality films. It has never been maintained by any hon. Member that the expenditure on a film is, of necessity, any criterion of its quality. We are all agreed about that. It is possible to spend vast sums of money and have a poor product at the end. We also make provision


in the Bill for a contingency equally possible, that in certain cases talent, art and ingenuity may take the place of money, and a film of special entertainment value, indeed, of supreme excellence, may be produced for a comparatively small sum. All the same, I do not think hon. Members will deny that, speaking generally, the amount of money which producers have available to spend on the production of a film bears some relation to the probable quality of the film. It was maintained by hon. Members in all quarters of the House, and it has been maintained by the Press, that one of the principal objects at which this House should aim in revising the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, should be not only to encourage the production of British films in reasonable and increasing numbers under the shelter of a quota, but more particularly to raise the standard and quality of these films. It is also a matter of common agreement among those who have studied this question that a major factor, almost an essential factor, in the financial success of any film upon which a lot of money has been spent is that it should not be restricted to exhibition in the comparatively limited market of this country, but should make its way into the wider and potentially profitable foreign market, principally the United States of America.
Therefore, the object of allowing this treble credit for a film into which the producers have put a good deal of money is to encourage, as far as we can, the production in this country of quality films which will have a market in America as well as in this country, and which we hope will be a credit and an advertisement to the British film industry. I think it can be argued that this proposal will help to meet a complaint about which we heard a good deal upstairs—the complaint that the British producer is always undersold by the American. If, as it has been suggested, the American renters should decide to go in for the expensive £60,000 film to satisfy their quota—I think it is doubtful whether they all will —it is obvious that the downward pressure which it is said the American renter organisations at present exercise on the prices of ordinary British programme films will be to that extent relieved.
I imagine that the renters will wholeheartedly support the proposal, but I have been informed that the exhibitors

take the strongest objection to it. They profess to regard it as a heavy blow to the exhibiting side of the industry, and they say that their objections are not based primarily on the quota, but on the fact that the proposals will reduce the total supplies of films available to them. They argue, first, that all renters will go in for this scheme and that the number of quota films will be thereby reduced, and, secondly, that no British films surplus to renters' quota will be available. These arguments, I think, omit one or two important factors. To start with, it is a rather tall assumption to say that American organisations, which have in the past contented themselves with spending the minimum sum upon pictures to satisfy their quota, will all suddenly switch over and go in for these expensive films, at a cost not of three times as much as single quota films, but four times as much. Therefore, in order to obtain the same amount of quota credit these organisations would have to spend 33.3 per cent. more. The point should also be remembered that the American renters are only responsible for three-fifths of the imported films, and I cannot see that American renters will completely change their policy.
We have heard of the difficulty of securing finance at the present moment for the making of British films, and if it is difficult to secure finance for the production of ordinary programme picture films costing a sum of £15,000, I think it is much more difficult to get finance for these more expensive films. For one thing, it is obvious that very much more preparation is required for the production of a film of this kind than for the preparation of a film on a small scale. The estimate made by the Board of Trade, which I think the House will accept, is that the numbers might be reduced to between 50 and 60 for quota films, and that for films produced outside the quota there should be something like 50 more available, that is, about 100 films in all. It is admitted that last year 225 British films were produced; but on the cinematograph exhibitors' own admission, about 100 of those films were not, in their view, bookable propositions.
I must make it clear to hon. Members what is the claim of the exhibitors in regard to the number of films with which they have to be supplied. They claim to need 150 British films, in addition to


foreign imports, or 700 films in all. That is based on what I think hon. Members will regard as a very extreme case. It is true that this number of films has been available during the last two years, but it was not available in the year preceeding; and in fact, the number of films, both British and foreign, available to exhibitors has varied very considerably, as can be shown by the figures. For instance, there was a total of 618 in 1932, which rose to 643 in 1933 and 679 in 1934, and then went down to 667 in 1935, before rising to above 700 during the last two years. The margin in the total number available is greater than any difference in the renters' quota that could happen under the treble quota scheme.
The records of the Board of Trade as to the cost of films are necessarily incomplete, since we have no power to find out how much is paid to excluded aliens, but our records show that very few films are made with a labour cost of between £22,500 and £30,000; in other words, the tendency appears to be that once a producer goes beyond the programme type of pictures, he immediately gets into the top class. Therefore, it seems that if the foreign film renter-producer does take advantage of getting the treble quota film made, he will probably not take advantage of the double. The main justification for this change, which I admit was made at a late hour, is that it gives some additional encouragement to the British producer to go in for a class of film which we believe is the only method of getting a footing for genuine British films in the American market. We consider that to be the only way of giving to the British film that réclame and advertisement upon which the prosperity of the film industry can be built.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Did the British producers ask for it?

Captain Wallace: The British producers turned down the scheme of my right hon. Friend for double exhibitors' quota. It seems to us that this is an occasion when, not having been able to help the producers by giving them the particular kind of protection they want, we might very well do something which, in the opinion of the Government, will be definitely to the advantage of the British

producer. I think any one who has followed the discussion on this Measure will realise that the genesis of the present Bill was the inability of the industry to make a Bill of their own agreement and the necessity with which the Government was faced of coming in and doing the work for them, perhaps in some respects against their will. I am certain that the British film industry will never reach that position which we should like to see it occupy if it is built up only on the basis of medium-priced programme pictures. It is because we believe that we cannot make progress on a scheme of a small protected enclave for the British industry, which would be excellent for those inside it but would not give a possibility of expansion outside the borders of our home market, that, in rejecting some of the proposals put forward for this protected enclave, we felt that we were acting in the best interests of the film industry by bringing forward—I admit at a comparatively late hour, but after all, a good many things were submitted to us at a late hour—a scheme which my right hon. Friend firmly and earnestly believes will be in the interests of the industry. I commend the proposal to the House.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: This is one of those last-minute fundamental changes of which there were so many in the course of the Committee stage in connection with this Measure. This last-minute proposal is the last word in last-minute proposals, considering what happened in Committee. We have had single quotas, separate quotas and double quotas, and now we have a treble quota which nobody wants. The Ministry have been told in fairly plain language, as I shall show in a minute or two, that neither the producers nor the exhibitors want this proposal which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has commended to the House. I agree that any attempt to create better films is very laudable, and I imagine that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be in general agreement on that. All of us want a successful industry and good films. We feel that we have a good deal of talent in this country to produce such films.
But apparently the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade, who, we regret, is not here to-day, have not considered for


a moment the possible reactions to this new proposal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that an odd telegram had been received here and there, but I understand that about 3,500 telegrams have been distributed among hon. Members. One thing that can be said is that whenever the Government are short of money, there is a very easy means of providing revenue for the Treasury. All they need to do is to place on the Order Paper an unconsidered and outrageous Amendment that will be bound to cause a large number of people in the country to go to the post offices and spend money on telegrams to hon. Members, thus causing the Post Office revenue to go up and the Government to become solvent again. It seems to me that for a long time there has not been such a spontaneous outburst of fear and anger as has followed the appearance of this Amendment on the Order Paper.
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to tell us why, after the President of the Board of Trade made a statement in Committee that this matter had been definitely and finally dropped, this Amendment should have been brought forward without consulting those who were likely to be most adversely affected by it? I think I shall be able to show that their fears are in no way exaggerated. I shall bring in as my chief witness the President of the Board of Trade. I will quote from a statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in the Standing Committee on Tuesday, 8th February. The Minister explained to the Committee a set of proposals which he had submitted to what are called the Federation of British Industries producers. Those proposals related to reciprocity, the double quota, the treble quota and so on. In the course of his explanations to the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
In the light of all this, I put before the producers—the producers' section of the Federation of British Industries—a definite scheme, detailed in all its parts, and which as far as I was concerned was not capable of alteration in any detail which would throw it out of balance.
A little later, he said:
Those were the proposals that I put forward, and I think the Committee will agree that they were put forward in fairly definite form. They were put before the producers' section, and I told them that they had been worked out in relation to the central idea and that the scheme must stand or fall as a whole.

The right hon. Gentleman then told the Committee of a letter which he had received, but which I need not quote, and he concluded his speech with the following observation:
I take that letter to be a rather roundabout way of rejecting this proposal, and that being so, I have no intention of making any further move in the matter.
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to tell us why the President of the Board of Trade has not only made a further move in the matter, but has made such a move as will completely upset the balance of the scheme which he submitted to the producers? Both producers and exhibitors were included in the proposals, there being a treble quota for the renter and a double quota for the exhibitor. The producers turned down the proposals, and the right hon. Gentleman said that he would have nothing more to do with the matter. He has not consulted the exhibitors about this partial application of his central scheme. He has placed part of the scheme on the Order Paper, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved it without telling us anything about the possible reactions and what those most interested think about the proposal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved an Amendment which not only puts the general scheme out of balance, but apparently has not to stand or fall as a whole, but to stand by itself, without regard for what may be the reactions to it.
I commend to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's notice one other observation made by the President of the Board of Trade. On the same day, the President of the Board of Trade presented to the Committee a careful calculation that had been made for him by his very competent officials at the Board of Trade. He was dealing with the question of how many films might be produced to fulfil renters' quota and the number that might be produced by independent producers, and he reached this conclusion:
I do not regard this as any matter of principle. Whether it is 10 or 12½ or 15 per cent. is entirely a question, in the first year at any rate, of fact, a question of how many films are going to be available. On the calculations that I have made—and we have gone into this with the very greatest care—I can only tell the Committee that I believe for the first years, especially in view of the delays in the passing of this Bill and the longer period of uncertainty which has meant postponement of production, that to put the figure higher than 10 per cent"—


that is exhibitors' quota—
would lead to a serious default among exhibitors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 8th February, 1938; cols. 448–460.]
In the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman informed us that although 220 British films were produced last year over 200 exhibitors had to default—they could not help themselves. That was the warning which the right hon. Gentleman had taken. But at the next meeting of the Committee he increased the exhibitors' quota from 10 to 12½ per cent., although previously he had said that 10 per cent. was the maximum which the exhibitors would be able to fulfil. Now he produces this Amendment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly said that hon. Members in all parts of the House would prefer that high quality films rather than mediocre films should be produced. We have it on record that when good British films are available, exhibitors are willing to show them. In every year, I believe since 1930, British films exhibited in this country have very largely exceeded the exhibitors' quota. When the films are available and of good quality, there is no disinclination on the part of exhibitors to show them. What is the treble quota likely to do? If, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, those who produce to fulfil renters' quota take advantage of this opportunity, clearly they are bound to produce fewer films. That seems beyond argument. The first effect of that will be less employment, and the second effect will be fewer films available for exhibition. That is the cause of the fear and anxiety expressed in the telegrams received by hon. Members yesterday and the day before.
Let us make the best calculation we can. I am now taking the exhibitors' figures, which may be exaggerated, but we can allow for some exaggeration. They say that 550 imported films would require approximately 97 British films for the quota. If the producers produce £30,000 films and obtain treble quota for each film, they need produce only 33 films. The President of the Board of Trade told us in Committee that he did not expect more than 50 British films in the first year—and 33 and 50 make 83. But the right hon. Gentleman himself in another passage of his speech in Committee, declared that 100 films was the minimum which would be required to fulfil a 10

per cent. exhibitors' quota. Is there not, then, a reason for the anxiety and fear which have been expressed on the part of those who may be made to default, because the films are not available to enable them to fill their quota?

Captain Wallace: I understand that what the hon. Member is saying arises from the assumption that all foreign renters who have British quota to fulfil, will fulfil it solely and exclusively by producing treble quota films?

Mr. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that I said I was taking the exhibitors' figures. They may be exaggerated. Let us then reduce the calculation to what we would regard as the normal proportions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will be terribly disappointed if the renters do not produce higher quality films. That is the object of their Amendment. If the renters are not going to produce films which will qualify for treble quota, there is no point in the Amendment. To the extent, therefore, that use is made of this treble quota, it is bound to reduce the number of films available for exhibition. Assuming that 97 films are required, they will only produce a proportion of good-quality films under the terms of this Amendment. Suppose that instead of reducing the number of films from 97 to 33 we reduce it to 45 or 50 or whatever figure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider reasonable. The President of the Board of Trade when referring only to £7,500 films, anticipated that only 50 films would be produced to fulfil renters' quota—not 97, the suggested requirement.
I would say that the exhibitors figures are not only not an exaggeration but a hopeless contraction in view of the right hon. Gentleman's own calculations, made with the assistance of the Board of Trade officers. He says he requires 50 normal £15,000 films to fulfil renters' quota and that 50 will be produced by independent people. That makes 100 and he thinks that justifies a 10 per cent. exhibitors' quota. Taking the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 50, let us suppose that the renters produce 10 films of the better quality and claim the treble quota, making those 10 films equal to 30 and that they also produce 20 £15,000 films. There are only 30 films, in that case, instead of 50. Unless the President of the Board of


Trade proposes to take power in this Measure to compel somebody to produce sufficient films to fulfil the exhibitors' quota, I do not know what he proposes to do. This seems to me to be an Amendment which is designed to compel people to default.
In Committee my colleagues and I always regarded this as a non-party Measure. We cannot find anything comparable with this industry. Its multifarious ramifications and conflicting interests compel us to face it as an isolated problem, unlike any other problem in the country. Therefore we were willing to go with the right hon. Gentleman as far as he could take us upon a basis of sensible calculation, whether as regards renters' quota or exhibitors' quota. We were willing to go with him all the way on that basis, but we shall hesitate to legislate into default the people who cannot help themselves. We do not want to find the exhibitors at variance with the Board of Trade or the Board of Trade at variance with either the exhibitors or the producers. If this Bill passes we want it to start on a solid foundation and with some hope of a measure of co-operation. But if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or his right hon. Friend put on the Order Paper and endeavour to pass an Amendment which adversely affects major interests in this industry, then it would appear that there will not be co-operation and I am afraid there will be the exact opposite.
If we take the right hon. Gentleman's own figures there can be no justification for this Amendment without other Amendments that will prevent people having to default against their will. The calculations are there for every Member to see in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. I stand on those figures and I do not think anyone can question them. I may be asked, "How is it that you never complained about the double quota?" That is a challenge which I wish to anticipate. It is generally conceded by the Board of Trade that a film, the labour costs of which amount to approximately £7,500, will cost £15,000. It has also been calculated that no matter how high you go up the scale the same proportions remain. That does not follow at all. For a £15,000 film it is necessary to hire a studio and to have lighting and effects and the rest, and it has been calculated that a film the labour costs of which are

£22,500, instead of costing £50,000 may cost only £35,000. A £35,000 film for which the producer got double quota will cost him £5,000 more than two £15,000 films. It is argued that there is no advantage there to the producer in claiming doubt quota and there is not much likelihood of selling the £35,000 film in America. But if you lift the labour costs from £22,000 to £30,000 and give him treble quota for it, it is thought possible, despite all the terms of this Measure in regard to labour costs, that the cost may be not £60,000 but £45,000, and for £45,000 there is treble quota plus the chance of selling a well-made £45,000 film in America.
We want to see as many British films sold in America as possible, but we cannot do one thing in this curious industry without noting the reaction on other parts of the industry. I submit that I have given sound, logical reasons for inviting the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw this Amendment. I am certain that if all hon. Members who vote—if a vote is taken—could listen to all the arguments in favour of and against the treble quota, the Minister would lose easily. I have an Amendment down to the Minister's Amendment on Clause 26, the object being to defer the application of this for 12 months until the council have had an opportunity of examining it. If hon. Members will look at the principle and the possible effect of the application of this and subsequent Amendments, I am convinced that, if they want to do themselves justice and to keep the Minister out of serious trouble, they will not hesitate to vote against the Amendment.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on the great lucidity with which he explained this most difficult point. I am certain that hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee upstairs must be finding our Debates to-night a little difficult to follow, and I do not think I am under-estimating when I say that this is a sort of subject about which in the Committee we were never certain whether we came to the right conclusion. I support the hon. Member for Don Valley. I was against him on his new Clause, but on this matter I am very much with him, with one


qualification. His justification for supporting the double quota which he gave at the end of his speech was that it did not matter because it could never happen. That was not a justification on merit. The chances of it ever being used were so remote that he did not mind whether the words appeared in the Bill or not. I opposed the double quota upstairs, and I oppose the treble quota even more strongly.
Let me put the matter in other terms so that hon. Members who are not familiar with the problem may appreciate it. The renter is the wholesaler, the exhibitor is the retailer. We are passing a Bill to provide that out of every 200 oranges the retailer sells in the first year 25 must have been produced in the British Empire. We are also saying that the wholesale importer or merchant must see that out of every 200 oranges he imports 30 shall be of Empire origin. The reason we demand that the merchant shall have more than the retailer is to ensure that the retailer will have some choice of the oranges he buys before he offers them to the public. The President of the Board of Trade, however, says that if the wholesale merchant buys only big oranges, or if some of them are big, and if the Empire oranges are three times the size of the others, each of the big oranges shall count as three. Therefore, to take an extreme case, the wholesale merchant will then have only 10 oranges on his shelves and the poor retailer has to buy 25. That is, in different terms, the proposition which the Parliamentary Secretary, for reasons I do not understand, is asking us to accept.

Captain Arthur Evans: Would my hon. Friend's point be met if a consequential Amendment were made to Schedule I to increase the renter's quota?

Mr. Williams: You might treble the renter's quota and make everything equal, but that in essence would leave us only where we were.

Captain Evans: What I meant was that we could increase the renter's obligations under Schedule 1 to produce films, so that, instead of reducing the quota in the first year, you should put it up to 20 per cent. and make it permissive to increase that quota as the Board of Trade deemed

wise. Then you would provide enough films for the exhibitor to place on his screen.

Mr. Williams: That is, obviously, a proposal to treat every one alike, and I do not think it is a solution. What is even worse about this proposal is its ultimate effect upon British films. We are going to have, theoretically, as a maximum, a shortage of 7½ per cent. taking the worst possible circumstances. The exhibitor, if he is not to break the law, has to get some kind of film at all costs, and the only result will be a series of perfectly deplorable cheap films which will bring discredit to the British film-producing industry. It must be remembered that our test of quality imposed by price affects only the renter's quota. It does not affect what the exhibitor may show. The exhibitor will be forced to buy rubbish, and perhaps to buy dearly, and to exhibit it with the knowledge that it is British rubbish, and we shall have a worse state of affairs than ever.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider this matter. He is in a difficulty. His President is in bed and the distinguished right hon. Gentleman by his side is there in order that the Cabinet may be represented; but I doubt whether, with all his intelligence, the Minister of Health knows anything about this Bill. I do not blame him; it is not his fault, for he is not a superman. I am not reflecting upon him, but I doubt whether there is a Member of the Cabinet, apart from the President of the Board of Trade, who is in a position to give any serious advice to the Parliamentary Secretary. We have to come to a decision without the advice of the only Member of the Cabinet who knows anything about it. In these circumstances, since the shepherd is away, the flock will have to come to a decision, and I hope, without any disrespect to His Majesty's Ministers who are present and to the distinguished persons who are known as the Whips, that we shall vote against the proposal which ought never to have been made.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I feel that I must defend the Minister of Health against the attack which has been made upon him by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams).


The right hon. Gentleman is one of the most quick-witted Members of the Cabinet, and I feel sure that in the short time he has been present at our discussions he has grasped the intricacies of the points that have been put before us and is capable of seizing the Parliamentary situation. I was surprised to see this extraordinary proposal placed on the Order Paper, and I join in the appeal to the Government to withdraw it. The President used clear and definite language on the Committee stage when he said that if the whole thing were not accepted it would be dropped, and it is difficult to understand why he should have suddenly picked upon this proposal and tried to incorporate it in the Bill. It shows how difficult it is to try to legislate 10 years ahead in an industry with the complications of the film industry.
I can well understand that there may be merits in this proposal, and that it may really assist the British film industry in some way, but nobody can say clearly at this moment that it will do so. It is the sort of problem that requires to be considered in all its intricacies by the experts who will be sitting on the Films Council. If the Government had proposed that this was a matter which was not to be put into operation at once, but was to be considered by the council and recommended to the Board of Trade if they thought it wise, and put into force after a certain number of years, that might have been a wise way of dealing with it. We are not given that option; we have to take it or leave it. I would say leave it, because we cannot see what difficulties we may be getting into. There will certainly be reactions in all directions which will cause great dissatisfaction. There is an important point in connection with this proposal. If this is to be incorporated in the Bill the renter's quota must be raised, for the two things go together. If that is not done, there will be no assistance to the 10,000 people in the industry who are now out of work. Of the 130 films that were made in this country last year and that were above the cost test, quite a number fulfilled the double and treble quota obligations.
Let me give an example of the way this scheme would work out in practice in decreasing productions in this country. I will take the case of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Company. They have just made

a film at Denham, "A Yank at Oxford," and we shall look forward to seeing it in the near future. They have in contemplation the making of four other films. One is "The Citadel," based on the well-known book by Dr. Cronin, and it will be a treble quota film. They are going to make a Royal Air Force film, which will again be a treble quota film; one called "The Finishing School," a double quota film; and another called "And so Victoria," which will again be a treble quote film. They may not be making them all this year, but contemplate doing so during the next year or two. As the Bill stands, they would have to make two of these films. If we pass this Amendment they need make only one in order to comply with the obligations. You are, therefore, relieving these people of the expenditure of an enormous sum of money which would give a great deal of employment in this country. What are you going to get in return? It is clear in the example I have given that one treble quota film would not be made under the Amendment, but would almost certainly be made as the Bill stands.
Take the case of the Twentieth Century Fox Film Company, that made "Wings of the Morning," a film that cost £150,000. It is clear that in that case, if they had any schemes for producing on this, scale, they would produce fewer films than at the present time, and, therefore, there would be fewer available to exhibitors and less employment in this country. There is no reason why the percentage of the quota should not be raised. There is ample opportunity in this country, and there is a large number of different concerns. There are those I have already mentioned, and there are the C. M. Woolf, General Film Distributors the Maxwell concerns, and Warner Brothers, all capable, with sufficient stimulus, of turning out the films that are required in this country for distribution to the various cinemas. But you are taking a step now which, so far from encouraging the use of those facilities, will do the direct opposite. I urge strongly that unless the Government can see their way to couple with this proposal an increase in the quota percentage, they should at this stage drop the proposal altogether. The only alternative that I can see to that is that the scheme, which may have merits, should be remitted to the Films Council to be brought into


operation a year or so hence if they think it has advantages which outweigh its disadvantages.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Emery: As one who has been a cinema exhibitor for 20 years, I want to say how sorry I am to see this Amendment introduced, if only for the fact that, in my opinion, it cuts right across the spirit of fairness and tolerance which characterised the efforts of the Minister in dealing with the matter upstairs. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the object of the treble quota is to encourage the production of more ambitious pictures in this country. In my opinion, what it certainly will do is to cause the cost of producing the films to rise, particularly films produced by American companies, and the number of films actually produced will correspondingly be less. That is a certainty. It is only to be expected that the American companies in particular will look upon the treble quota as a heaven-sent opportunity to them for acquiring their quota of British films with very little difficulty. For the purely British firms, it provides no incentive at all, in my opinion, for them to produce ambitious films, because, of course, they are in business solely for the production of British films, without being saddled with any corresponding liability of handling foreign productions. We can be quite sure that the big American firms will not handle any more British products than they are compelled to do, so that if they are to receive this concession of a treble quota, it means also at one stroke removing the advantages, if they are any, of the slight increase in the renters' quota requirements as compared with the exhibitors'.
By way of illustration, you can take the quota obligation which commences on 1st April next. There the renters' quota is 15 per cent. At the present time, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, the number of films imported into this country is about 550, which would mean the acquisition by those importers of something like 100 British films if they were to comply with their quota. Assuming that only one-half of that number came within the category of the £30,000 film, it would mean that approximately 66 British films would be necessary to comply with the Act. Let us take the position of the exhibitor who

only counts such a film once for his quota requirement, and let us assume that he is one of four exhibitors in the same district. By that I mean that he is in a district with three competitors, none of whom show the same film. There are scores and scores of such instances all over the country, and in most of these cases—this is one point that I wish to emphasise— these cinemas are known as twice-weekly-change houses; that is, they change their programme on the Monday and again on the Thursday. In such a case an exhibitor would require 16 films for his quota, and so would each of his three competitors, with the result that they would be completed among them to show every British film that was produced, without giving any one of them any margin of selection.
The position is infinitely worse in those areas where there are six or seven cinemas in direct competition. I can give the instance of Manchester, where I have practical experience. Last year, in the centre of the city—and when I say "the centre" I mean within a radius of half a mile from the Manchester Town Hall— there were seven cinemas in business, all in direct competition with each other and unable to show the same films. If the position had been as I have indicated, it would have been mathematically impossible for the quota requirement of each of those exhibitors to have been met. The treble quota in particular pays no regard at all to the local conditions or the insufficiency of supply of British films for the competitive centres in large areas of population, and I submit that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will only be successful according to how it meets the conditions and the needs of the large and competitive centres.
May I again particularly emphasise the difficulty which the treble quota would bring to those cinemas, easily the big majority in the country, which are compelled to change their films twice weekly? In many other cases as well, apart from changing films twice weekly, they change two films twice weekly; in other words, they are showing four films in one week. As against what the Parliamentary Secretary referred to, namely, 104 films in a year, they are showing 208 films. It is true, I know, that the quota is calculated on the basis of footage and that in their case they would probably show no more


footage than the particular cinema which showed only one film a week, but there is this vital difference, that the twice-weekly-change house calls for twice the number of British films in order to enable the exhibitor to meet his quota; and it is this large reduction in the number of films which is bound to be produced that will bring difficulties to a great number of exhibitors in this country, difficulties which, in my opinion, will be insurmountable and, as the hon. Member for Don Valley has said, will only bring them into conflict with the Board of Trade.

7.25 p.m.

Major Procter: As one who has been actively engaged in the production side of this industry, I did not desire to take any part in the Committee stage of this Bill, and in this Debate, apart from this small contribution which I am about to make, I propose to take no part on any question that may arise, as I believe that those of us who have a financial interest in this matter should not take part in Debates such as these. I should have liked, of course, to have dealt with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford (Mr. Emery), and I would just say, in passing, that, he as an exhibitor has no complaint whatever in so far as the exhibition of pictures in this country is concerned.

Mr. Emery: I have been prosecuted.

Major Procter: That may be, but in so far as the exhibitors are concerned, they are the prosperous side of this industry; it is they, and they alone, who are making profits in the industry. Also we have the problem of redundancy, which in itself has helped the exhibitors very much indeed. It is not on that side, of the problem of production, it is not the recital of the great losses which every British production company has made during the past years, that I wish to speak. I approve of the treble quota because of the interests of the workers in this industry, and I speak as the President of a trade union connected with the industry that has been very hard hit. Many of the workers have found no employment whatever during the past year, and one of our members during the whole of last year had only eight days' work and this year nothing at all. The speaker for the Opposition said that this Amendment would mean the production of the cheaper kind of films. That is perfectly true. The

hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) spoke about the foreign production firms that had produced films like "Wings of the Morning," and he said that that is the kind of film which, if this Amendment is passed, would be made in this country. If the British film industry is to recover its prestige, that is the kind of film that must be made in this country, if we are to compete against the American productions.
It is films of a high character, of high class, that need encouragement, and if you give encouragement to the production of the cheaper kind of film, it will be impossible to find finance to make pictures which will be a credit to the British industry and to our national name. It is in pictures of good value that the greatest employment is given to members of my trade union, the Film Artists' Association, affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. I am proud to be a member of it, and I speak on behalf of those of its members, men and women, who are out of jobs at this moment. If you produce cheap pictures in this country there is no work for the crowd. How can you have a crowd of 1,000, say, at 1,000 guineas a day, if you produce merely cheap pictures? The cheap picture means the elimination of the members of my trade union from films. Again, a cheap picture means that much of the work will be done in the open, away from the studios altogether. If a picture is taken in the Strand or in Hyde Park that will mean that the technicians and electricians, who are members of our union would be out of work. It is the good pictures that demand the highest-trained technicians, receiving a high rate of pay, and high wages cannot be paid and these men cannot be employed if you do not encourage those better pictures. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will stand firm for this Amendment, which will enable us to get the finance to pay the wages of the 8,000 men and women who are now unemployed.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I listened carefully to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Accrington (Major Procter), but I could not understand his suggestion that if this proposal were adopted there would be more work for the people employed in the film industry. The factor which he seemed to forget was that, although


the films produced might be more expensive, there would be one-third less film produced under this proposal, and I should have thought that, if it had any effect on the number of working people employed, it would have the effect of reducing it. I cannot see why more people should be employed in producing more expensive films if the films produced are a third less.

Major Procter: Because the cheap pictures do not occupy the studio time. They may be in the studio for just a few days, whereas a large picture may take 12 weeks. As you step up the costs so you increase the employment in the industry.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman, I know, is an expert on this matter, but I understand that it usually happens that in the production of an expensive film a less proportion of money is spent in the wages of technicians and others, compared with a cheaper film. I was surprised by the argument of the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to provide statutory encouragement of the film producers in order to induce them to produce good films. Surely the film producers naturally want to produce good films.

Sir Adrian Baillie: The foreign renter is an importer of foreign films, and the obligation is on him, not on the film producer.

Mr. Strauss: The argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington was that this proposal was desirable for the production of good films. I suggest that that is a ridiculous argument, because the producers have, anyhow, every inducement to make good films. The Minister admitted that the proposal was brought forward at the last moment, although there was considerable opposition outside, and I submit that in such circumstances we must be careful that the underlying reasons for such a new proposal are carefully considered. As I understand it the position of the Government is this. If you hold out as an inducement a treble quota of films on which the labour costs amount to £30,000, then it is possible that such good films will be produced as will be able to enter the American market. Is that really a sound argument? Let us pursue it to its logical conclusion. Suppose the Government go further and offer a quadruple quota, when labour costs

amount to £40,000. According to the argument for this Amendment, British films would then have even greater success in America. Or why should not they quintuple the quota, with costs of £50,000? Such a proposal would establish British films in every country in the world.
I suggest that this underlying principle is ridiculous. You cannot make producers in this country produce first-class films which will be a success in America by trying to induce them to spend more money on their films. I believe that, with the artists and the talent and the technicians available in this country, if the British film industry is properly organised, and if it is not handicapped by mad finance and is conducted on cooperative lines, it will be able to produce films as good as those produced in any other part of the world, and which will be successful in America. I suggest that the Government's proposal, therefore, is a fallacious one and, as the principle of this Amendment is extremely doubtful, to put it no higher, and it has caused consternation in the industry, the best course would be to withdraw it.

7.40 p.m.

Commander Bower: It is very difficult for anyone who was not on the Committee upstairs to understand all the intricacies of this Bill, but, after all, the Bill is one which interests almost everyone in the country. Yesterday morning I, as usual, read the organs of the Left wing Press, and I saw that Members on this side of the House had been overwhelmed with telegrams. Consequently, when I opened a large number of telegrams it was with some trepidation, because I thought that the League of Nations Union had been getting busy, but I found it was these telegrams which have already been referred to, coming from film exhibitors. My feeling is that this proposal has been brought forward at the last moment, it is very distasteful to an enormous number of exhibitors, and those exhibitors are the nearest people in the industry to the general public. I think that is a factor of the greatest importance. If the exhibitors object to it, there must be something in that objection.
I think we should give due weight to the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter); at the same time, he represents a very


small number of people compared with the cinema-going public. It is the cinema-going public, after all, whom we have finally to consider in all these matters, and that comprises almost everybody in the country. Indeed, I think the mere fact of these telegrams having been received, whereas, so far as I know, practically no other telegrams of any sort arrived—despite the imaginings of the correspondents of the Left wing Press yesterday—shows where the real interests of the people lie. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here to-day because it might perhaps have enabled him to get a sense of the matters of real importance to the people of this country. But I received one telegram worthy of attention from the President of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' association in which, after saying that this proposal would cause the greatest setback the industry has ever received, he suggests that it should be rejected until it has received consideration by the Cinematograph Films Council. I believe that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has an Amendment down roughly to that effect, and I suggest to the Minister that, in view of the strong feeling expressed in all quarters of the House, he should accept that suggestion and drop this proposal, at any rate for the present.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I was on the Committee. I tried to see this Bill with the eyes of an ordinary human being, and I supported, and still support, this proposal for that reason. I think the last 10 years of the old Act roughly gave us in this country a British cinema industry which could produce an ordinary second-class feature film. What is wanted in the next 10 years is a British cinema industry which will produce first-class feature films, and here is a proposal which in my estimation will encourage the British film industry to do that. That is the first reason why I support this proposal. The second is this: One of the reasons for the almost complete collapse of the British film-making industry at the present moment is lack of funds and enormous sums of money have been completely wasted in the British film industry in the last 10 years. The situation has got so bad that no one with any money will put it into the film industry until some confidence can be restored. Now

there will be an opportunity to put money into the industry for the production of decent pictures, such as will not only have a sale in this country and in America but such as decent people can be proud of and such as will put British production really on the map in England and America.
I shall not go into details of the figures which were given to us by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) but in his deductions from them he left out one item which ought to be taken into consideration—the voluntary films. Last year, although the exhibitors' quota was 20 per cent., the actual percentage of British films produced and shown in British cinemas was about 29 per cent., which is well over the quota, and shows that there is a considerable surplus of voluntary film production; and there is no reason why that situation should not continue. Therefore, any anxiety which exhibitors may have about being able to get films is much exaggerated. The hon. Member for Don Valley says that the Board of Trade should have power to let exhibitors off if they are unable to get the films. Already Clause 13 gives that specific power. For the three reasons I have given I suggest that this proposal for a treble quota should be supported.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member said that I omitted to mention the independent films. I do not think I did, because I gave the estimate of the President of the Board of Trade, which will be found in the report of the proceedings of the Committee:
It is not easy to assess the number of British films outside the renters' quota, but the Federation of British Industries put it as high as 50."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 8th February, 1938; col. 459.]
The President went on to remark that perhaps that might be regarded as an optimistic estimate.

7.48 p.m.

Captain A. Evans: The House must long ago have come to the conclusion that this is a difficult and complicated question, and after the arguments put forward during the last hour or so I think the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) is to be congratulated on bringing the House back to the real objects of the Bill. What is the object of the Bill, and what is the desire not only of the Government but of the interests which are


affected? It is to encourage the production of British films, and thereby give employment to British people employed in that industry, and to encourage the exhibition of good British films not only in this country but in other countries, particularly America. If I understand it aright the purpose of the treble quota is to encourage the exhibition, in this country particularly, of British films which have a high standard of quality. When the first quota Bill was introduced, in 1927, I think, the great criticism was that it might well be that though British films might be available for exhibition they would not be of a sufficiently high quality to gain the support of the British public. That is one of the main criticisms to which this Bill has been subjected. It is said that in nine cases out of ten the British films exhibited under the requirements of the last Bill were of such poor quality as not to encourage exhibitors to show them, because they did not command the support of the public.
I think it is admitted that the particular proposal before us will encourage the production of high quality British films, but I feel that the Government are in a little difficulty through not having carried their policy to its logical conclusion, and one way out would be for them to accept the Amendment standing in the name of certain hon. Friends of mine and myself to amend Schedule 1 and thereby to encourage British producers to produce more films. It is agreed that we want to show better quality British films, and it must also be agreed that we cannot do so unless we give practical encouragement to the British producer to produce more films of that character. I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Amendments on the Order Paper, because there he will find the way out of the difficulty. The first Amendment is:
Schedule 1, page 40, line 21, column 1, leave out "12½" and insert "15.
That is a proposal to increase the exhibitors' quota at the beginning from 12½ to 15 per cent. Then there is a further Amendment—
Schedule 1, page 40, line 30, column 1, leave out "25" and insert "40.
That would increase the quota at the end from 25 to 40 per cent. The, object of those two Amendments, which must

be considered in conjunction with the proposal of the Government, is to raise the exhibitors' quota from a 12½—15 per cent. basis to a 25–40 per cent. basis. With such elasticity the Board of Trade could, in their discretion, increase the quota to the higher percentage as the production of British films permitted. In response to all the complaints of producers about the inadequacy of this Bill the only crumb of comfort which has been offered up to date by the Board of Trade is to raise the initial exhibitors' programme from 10 to 12½ per cent., but we have to bear in mind that the quota as it obtains to-day is not 12½ per cent. but is, in fact 20 per cent.
In Committee upstairs the argument was put forward by the Board of Trade that owing to the new conditions which will obtain under this Bill, and the additional cost of producing a certain class of British films, it would not be fair to ask the British producer to increase his quota of the market available up to a standard of 20 per cent. but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Procter) pointed out, the producer himself has some very practical difficulties to face. He has to obtain finance for his films and it is easier to get finance from the City of London if they are satisfied there that under a Bill passed by this House a certain high and fair percentage of an available market will be available for that particular class of films. The proposal of the Government is that that quota should be reduced, and instead of the British producer having 20 per cent. of an available market—unless the Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friends are accepted—that available market will be reduced from 20 to 12½ per cent.

Mr. G. Strauss: On a point of Order. Are we entitled on this Amendment to discuss the question of the general quotas?

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment to which the hon. and gallant Member has been referring has a considerable bearing on this subject.

Mr. T. Williams: On the same lines would it be permissible to discuss an Amendment which I have put down to Clause 26, which would defer this proposal for 12 months, until after its examination by the Films Council?

Mr. Speaker: I think that would also be in order.

Captain Evans: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling, because my argument was directed to showing that the Government's proposal would be acceptable only if they made the necessary consequential Amendments at a later stage to encourage the production as well as the exhibition of the films we are considering. I think I have made my point sufficiently clear to my right hon. and gallant Friend, and I hope he will give us some encouragement to believe that that aspect of the case will be taken into review.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw this Amendment and to accept the one standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to Clause 26, to defer the proposal for 12 months. I object strongly to the way in which this Amendment for treble quotas has been brought forward. One of the advantages of our Parliamentary system is that a Bill can be threshed out in Committee after it has received a Second Reading. In Committee upstairs Members of all parties considered this Bill for some 12 or 13 days, and the treble quota was never once mentioned there.

Captain Wallace: If the hon. Member will look at column 459 of the report of the Committee proceedings he will find that my right hon. Friend said categorically that he proposed to bring forward this proposal.

Mr. Smith: What I said was, perhaps, an overstatement, but the proposal for a treble quota was not examined there.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary does not mean what he has just said. The President of the Board of Trade not only did not say that he was going to bring this proposal forward, but said in winding up his speech:
I take that letter to be a rather roundabout way of rejecting this proposal, and, that being so, I have no intention of making any further move in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 8th February, 1938, cols. 450–1.]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): If the hon. Member turns to Column 483 in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the next day's sitting of the Committee, he will find that my right hon. Friend the President said:

Those are the proposals with regard to reciprocity and with regard to increasing the amount of quota allowance for the expensive film. Both those proposals were recommended to me by the producers themselves in a considered statement which they made in October, and although they formed part of the general scheme for a double quota I shall propose on Report to proceed with these two items and ask the House of Commons to include them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 10th February, 1938, col. 483.]
I am not arguing the merits, but in view of that statement which must have been overlooked by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), it is not fair to say that my right hon. Friend did not give notice in advance.

Mr. T. Smith: I hope the House will understand that I had no intention of making a misstatement. I had overlooked it. It may be that there is some merit in this proposal, but I doubt it. Taking the long view, I hope that it may be for the best. Will it not be wiser, from the angles both of the Government and of the trade, not to discuss this matter now and pass it into law, but to refer it for consideration to the Films Council which is set up under Clause 39? There the proposal could be analysed, discussed, and examined by 21 people appointed for definite purposes, and if they felt that it merited sufficient consideration they could recommend to the President of the Board of Trade that he bring draft regulations before this House. That would be preferable, because the pros and cons could be discussed much more thoroughly. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider this suggestion. Whether he accepts it or not, I hope that the supporters of the Government will not, to borrow a film phrase, be yes-men. Many of them have indicated exactly how they feel about this matter, and if the Amendment is not withdrawn I hope that they will follow us into the Lobby against it.

8.1 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The object of the renters' quota in the Bill, as in the Act of 1927, is to ensure to the exhibitor a supply of films to fill the exhibitors' quota. The renters' quota has always been greater than the exhibitors' quota, and the exhibitor has always been assured of there being more films in the renters' quota than were required to fill his own quota. Our object surely should be not to reduce the percentage of the renters' quota but to increase it to as high a


point as possible. We are building up our industry on the renters' quota. The question revolves itself into this: Can the British industry supply the renter with sufficient films to comply with the renters' quota which we lay down, and can we obtain the finance?
I would like, first, to deal with the question of finance, because it has been mentioned in this Debate. The finance for films made to fulfil the renters' quota has had to be found by the renter, or he had to get it from somebody else outside. Otherwise he defaulted on his quota. There is no trouble whatever about getting finance for films specifically made for fulfilling the renters' quota, because it is supplied by the renter. He looks upon the films in his quota as a direct tax upon him for the privilege of importing films from America. The difficulty is in financing the voluntary films in the renters' quota. In Committee, the President of the Board of Trade estimated that 450 American films would be imported under the Bill next year. At 15 per cent. renters' quota, that would mean 80 single British quota films to fulfil the renters' quota, but the President of the Board of Trade estimated that we should require only 50. The reason he said 50, obviously, was that of the 80 films 30 were to qualify for double quota, leaving only 20 for single quota, making 50 altogether.
It is ridiculous to suggest, with the large number of sound film studios and technicians that we have, that we cannot more than fulfil a renters' quota of 15 per cent. We could fulfil one of 20 per cent. or more quite easily. We have 80 studios in this country, at least 40 of which are capable of turning out six good films apiece a year, that is, 240. The studios have the best possible equipment in the world. They are equal to the best in the world. We have first-class technicians in this country, equal to any in the world. We have more than sufficient in this country to fulfil a quota of 20 or more per cent. There is no argument, from the production aspect, for reducing the renters' quota.
I agree that we need to produce films of good quality and that this suggestion will improve the quality of our films, but I would point out that we shall never get good quality films in this country unless we also have quantity. It is undeniable

that America produces about 100 good films a year, but only because the total production is 500 or more films a year. If America did not produce a quantity of films there would not be the quality. You cannot have quality without quantity. It is also a fact tha an American film-producing company is extremely satisfied with itself if, out of every ten films, they produce four which are successful. Therefore, if we wish to have good films made in this country, we must make them in quantity; otherwise we shall never get quality. If we accept the suggestion that because the labour cost of a film is not less than £30,000, the film is to count three times the renters' quota, we reduce the production of British films at once in this country, unless we say at the same time that because the film is to count three times the quota we raise that quota in proportion. By doing that we should increase the quality of our films, and ensure the quantity.
There is an absolute necessity for encouraging the production of films in this country. If we do not encourage production by one means or another, the industry must die. We can build up an industry in this country, a film industry or any other, only through the production side. Every industry we built up last year has been given protection on the production side. The same applies to the film industry but we are not protecting and encouraging film production in this country by saying to a film producer: "If you produce a film of a certain quality you reduce the amount of production in this country because your film will count three times to fulfil the renters' quota, instead of once." I am in agreement with the production of these films and that they should count three times, but only on the condition that if they count three times for renters' quota the renters' quota is raised in proportion.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has just returned to the Front Bench, because I want to make an appeal to him that may be of some interest to the House. Hon. Members may recall that the official Opposition adopted a somewhat unusual course upon the Second Reading of the Bill by discussing the Bill without moving any Amendment


and allowing it to be treated as a nonparty Measure. During the Committee proceedings, that spirit was continued, and, so far as I can recall, no party Division took place, either in the Committee or on the Second Reading of the Bill.
It therefore surprises me that, after such a Committee stage, a bombshell should be sprung, and a new proposal introduced. It has been flung into the proceedings and is now holding up the Bill. It is obvious from the discussion that hon. Members find great difficulty in deciding where they stand in relation to a proposal which has been sprung upon them since the Committee stage of the Bill. Although the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary have continued the consultations with the industry, no consultation of any kind has taken place on this proposal. It has been sprung. I do not think anyone has mentioned the fact, which appeals to me most, that the Measure is due, by the last Clause, to come into operation on 1st April, 1938, that is, in just over a month. The Bill will come into operation after it has passed through another place. If any Amendments are made there, the coming into operation of the Bill will probably be within two or three days of it getting to the Statute Book. Nevertheless, this proposal is put on the Order Paper by the President of the Board of Trade at this late stage, to come into force on 1st April.
Whatever the merits of the proposal may be in future years, it will be hopelessly impracticable to put it forward for the year which commences on 1st April. There is obviously a good deal of confusion, and I am sure the House would be grateful to the Minister of Health, although this is not his Department, and he is under a difficulty, if he had something to help the House into the position of being able to proceed with the Bill.

8.13 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I know that hon. Members will appreciate the position in which I find myself, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have listened with care and attention this evening to the speeches from all sides of the House on this matter, and I can judge and appreciate the spirit in which this Bill has been debated during the Committee stage. There has

been little or no division of opinion, and certainly not on party political lines.
What I feel I ought to do—and I hope it will meet with the assent of the House —is to tell the House that the Government will withdraw this Amendment. I tell the House, however, that I must reserve the position of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in this matter. If he feels that this is a matter of considerable moment to the industry and that the proposal must go forward in another place, it must be understood that the proposal will come back again for the consideration of this House. In order that we may make progress with the Bill—naturally I want to meet the general wishes of the House on the Bill—I will withdraw the Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. T. Williams: May I express our profound thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, and commend to his notice the Amendment on the Order Paper—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): If the hon. Member wishes the Amendment to be withdrawn, he must not make a speech.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 2, line 33, after "cost," insert:
then, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

In line 34, leave out "said purpose," and insert "purpose of that paragraph."

In line 34, after "twice," insert "or, as the case may be, three times."— [Captain Wallace.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Restrictions on the counting of a British film more than once, or by more than one renter, for quota purposes.)

8.17 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "or by more than one renter," and to insert:
by the same renter or counted by any renter other than the renter who has first acquired the film (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) for distribution in Great Britain.
This is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the renter who rents a British film as a renters' quota film cannot pass the quota rights on to another renter if he finds that that film is surplus


to his requirements. Otherwise, a situation might arise in which a renter who dealt largely in British films, and had more than enough to meet his obligations in proportion to his foreign films, could pass on certain of his British films to other renters after he had practically exhausted their market among exhibitors.

Amendment agreed to.

8.18 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "year," and to insert "period."
This is the first of a series of Amendments all of which go together and are drafting Amendments consequential on the change of the renters' quota period from a year to six months except in the first year, when we have allowed renters to satisfy their obligations over the period of 12 months instead of two half-periods of six months.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 8, leave out "year," and insert "period."

In line 9, leave out "period therein," and insert "part thereof."—[Captain Wallace.]

8.22 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, at the end, to insert "are registered as foreign films or."
This is a drafting Amendment designed to prevent the circumvention or evasion of Sub-section (2) of the Clause. The Clause as drafted would make it possible for renters to co-operate in such a way that each could confine his distribution of British films to a limited area of the country, so that, under the provisions of the Clause, each renter in turn, by distributing in his own limited area, could count the same British films for quota. That would be entirely contrary to the intention of the Bill. The insertion of these words will make the Sub-section applicable only to renters whose distribution of both British and foreign films is confined to a limited area. Evasion will not then be possible by renters who distribute foreign films throughout the country as a whole, which all the large renters do.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 39, leave out "year," and insert "renters' quota period."—[Captain Wallace.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Special provisions with respect to British films rented in foreign countries.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 42, leave out "may count in relation to any renters' quota period," and insert:
is to be deemed to have acquired in any renters' quota period for distribution in Great Britain."—[Captain Wallace.]

CLAUSE 4—(Exemption in respect of films for which demand is limited.)

8.27 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, after "Britain," to insert:
or who proposes to acquire it in any such period for distribution in Great Britain.

This Amendment is designed to enable the exemption from renters' quota which is given in the Clause to be taken advantage of more readily. This Clause, as the House will realise, refers to special films, in respect of which there is a limited demand. It may happen that a renter who wishes to acquire one of these specialised foreign films, against which British quota would not be required, would like to be quite certain, before he acquires the film for distribution in this country, that it comes under this Clause. As the Clause is drafted, this would not be possible, because he would not be able to apply until he had acquired the film. This Amendment simply enables him to find out beforehand whether it will be all right.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out "on the day on," and to insert, "with the date of application upon."

This Amendment, like others on Clause 4, is made to facilitate the application of these provisions. The renter who wants to get exemption from renters' quota for a foreign film in this particular class, may want to begin distributing before the formal directions are finally given by the Board. The Amendment would enable him to proceed with the distribution as from the date on which he applied.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, after "therein," to insert
or be exhibited to the public at more than twelve theatres in Great Britain or at more than six theatres in the administrative county of London, or be exhibited to the public at more than one theatre in Great Britain on the same day.

This Amendment, together with the next Amendment, gives effect to a promise which my right hon. Friend gave upstairs to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), to substitute for the existing conditions of exemption from renters' quota—namely, that the foreign film must not be exhibited for more than 12 weeks of the year—the condition that it should not be exhibited at more then 12 theatres. This, I think, had the general consent of the Committee. The Amendment also meets another wish expressed in the Committee, that out of those 12 theatres not more than six should be in the administrative county of London. This is in order to get a wider circulation for this particular type of film, which generally appeals to serious-minded people.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: We welcome these Amendments, because we feel that any specialised film, particularly a film displaying art, whether of an ancient or a modern type, ought not to be shown exclusively for the people living in London. There are plenty of artistically-minded people in the provinces.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Clause—[Captain Wallace.]

8.33 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert:
and if the renter delivers the film, after the end of that year, to an exhibitor for exhibition to the public at a theatre in Great Britain, then for the purpose of determining whether any quota conditions have been fulfilled by him, the film shall be treated as if, at the time when he first so delivers it, he had acquired it for distribution in Great Britain.
This is a drafting Amendment, to make clear the object of the Clause. It also permits one of these films to be exhibited every other year, and if the renter waits

until a year has elapsed, it is then open to him to apply for another year's exemption. The opinion of the Committee was that, while it would not be in the interests of the industry to allow one of these films to be exhibited without quota year after year, there would be certain advantages to be gained in keeping the position open.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5—(Combinations of renters for quota purposes.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 10, leave out "year," and insert "period." —[Captain Wallace.]

8.35 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the preceding provisions of this Section shall, in relation to the renters' quota period beginning with the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, have effect as if in those provisions for the word 'three' there were substituted the word 'six.'
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. Clause 5, as now drafted, allows small renters to combine for quota purposes with not more than one renter who has acquired more than three long films in a six months' period. The Amendment provides that in the first year, when the renters' period is 12 months, not more than one renter with whom the smaller renters may combine may have acquired more than six films, instead of three.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions with respect to films registered in a year subsequent to year of acquisition.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out from "determine," to "a," in line 22, and to insert "what films."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The renters' quota is based on the number of films acquired for distribution multiplied by the respective lengths of such films. As both the number and the length of a film are in question for renters' quota purposes, the present wording of the Clause, which refers merely to the number of films acquired, might perhaps be open to criticism.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Determination of exhibitors' quotas for period beginning 1st October, 1938, and ending 30th September, 1948.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(4) For the purpose of determining whether any conditions imposed by Subsection (1) of this Section have been fulfilled as respects any exhibitors' quota year, a film which was first registered as a British film more than four years before the beginning of that year shall be disregarded unless, upon an application made not later than the end of that year by a renter having a right to distribute the film in Great Britain, the Board of Trade, after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council and considering its advice in the matter, direct that the film shall be taken into account for that purpose.

This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking in the Standing Committee that consideration would be given to the question of excluding from the films which may count for the exhibitors' quota, such British films as were registered more than four years before the beginning of any exhibitors' quota year. The Amendment also provides that such a film, despite its age, may, nevertheless, be counted for quota, if the Board of Trade, after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, consider that this should be done (which means, in effect that the film has some outstanding quality). The Amendment provides that a four-year-old film shall be disregarded for exhibitors' quota purposes, i.e., it will not be necessary for an exhibitor who exhibits such a British film to exhibit British films which do count for quota against it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Licensing of renters and exhibitors.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 1, to leave out "at a particular theatre."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The words "at a particular theatre" are not only unnecessary but are inconsistent with the proviso to Sub-section (4).

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Record books to be kept by renters and exhibitors.)

8.39 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 13, line 4, to leave out "hour," and to insert "respective hours."
This and the next Amendment go together and are for the purpose of implementing another of the promises which we gave in Committee during our discussions there—I think it was a promise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams)—that the existing requirement in the Bill that the hour at which the exhibition of each film should begin and finish should be entered in the exhibitors' record book, should be eased. We subsequently made an Amendment in Committee, in Sub-section (3) of Clause 35 (which relates to the annual returns of an exhibitor), requiring the returns to include a note of the respective times at which exhibition of films each day began and ended. Hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House who studied the matter will agree that the material point was to ascertain for the good administration of the Act what are, in fact, the normal hours of exhibition. The present Amendment is on the same lines as the one already made and will simply require an exhibitor to specify in his return the time at which the exhibition began and finished each day.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 5, leave out from "which," to the end of line 6, and insert:
the exhibition of cinematograph films to the public at that theatre began and ended."—[Captain Wallace.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Power of Board of Trade to alter quotas by order.)

8.41 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Section the Board of Trade, after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council and considering its advice in the matter, may, not later than the end of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, lay before Parliament the draft of an order altering either or both of the proportions prescribed by Part II of the First Schedule to this Act for the year beginning with the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirtynine; and if before the end of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, each House of Parliament has resolved that the order be made, the Board shall forthwith make the order in terms of the draft and the order shall come into operation upon the making thereof.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the next following Sub-section.

This Amendment gives effect to a promise made by my right hon. Friend


in Standing Committee that we would make provision in the Bill to enable the Cinematograph Films Council to revise, in the Spring of 1939, that is, during the currency of the first exhibitors' quota year under the new Act, the level of the exhibitors' quota for the second exhibitors' quota year. The Amendment provides that the Board of Trade, on the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council, can, if my right hon. Friend thinks fit, lay before Parliament not later than the end of June, 1939, the draft of an Order altering the quota on either long films or short films, or both, for the exhibitors' quota year beginning 1st October, 1939. The House will appreciate that, while the present Bill brings into force a renters' quota year, which starts on the 1st April, the exhibitors' quota year, as in the case of the 1927 Act, is six months behind it, and, therefore, a revision of the exhibitors' quota for the second year, if undertaken during the first half of next year will enable the President of the Board of Trade, if the Cinematograph Films Council so recommend, and he thinks fit, to lay before Parliament a draft Order altering this quota.

We accepted this provision in order to give some encouragement, or, as some people would say, some needed encouragement to British film producers. We feel that during the discussions on this Measure and the negotiations which proceeded it there has grown up a certain atmosphere of uncertainty which has quite definitely retarded the production of films in this country. It is for that reason, as well as on account of the more onerous conditions laid upon the renters by the cost test, that we felt obliged not, as might have been expected, to maintain or increase the exhibitors' quota during the first period of the new Act but actually to reduce it. It was felt on all sides that with this period of a full year's working of the Act so far as the renters' quota was concerned, the Cinematograph Films Council will be in possession of a great deal of information which at present the Board of Trade lacks. We shall have a clear idea a year hence of the course of British production, and I hope the British film producers will feel that the insertion of this Amendment in the Bill will give them hope that, if they show themselves capable of "delivering the goods," the Films Council will take this

into consideration and may make recommendations for increasing the exhibitors' quota at the end of one year. It is entirely without prejudice to the subsequent statutory reviews laid down in other parts of the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: While we are all very anxious to help the producers we found it extremely difficult during the Committee stage to help one side of the industry without adversely affecting the other. The Committee were fairly unanimous that an early review would tend not only to provide the Board of Trade with the appropriate information which would guide them in dealing with the quotas, but also tend to give encouragement to producers, because of their knowledge that production would determine very largely the decision taken by the Board of Trade for the second year. The Amendment is a definite inspiration and encouragement and I hope that it will bring confidence to producers, so that the 8,000 unfortunate persons who have been disengaged for a long period may be drawn back into employment as quickly as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

8.46 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to move, in page 14, line 36, after the second "the," to insert, "quota committee of the."

This Clause deals with the power of the Board of Trade to alter quotas by Order, and the object of my Amendment is to constitute a special quota committee from the Advisory Council, from the non-representative members of the council, as may be selected by the council, for the purpose of advising the Board with regard to the provisions of this Section, and dealing with the alteration of the quota. We have heard arguments in favour of a Films Council, with 21 members, 11 of whom shall be members who have no pecuniary interest in any branch of the cinematograph film industry, one of whom is the chairman, with 10 other members all of whom are directly interested in the film industry. This body of 21 is to advise the President of the Board of Trade on matters connected not only with the Act but also with the industry as a whole. When we come to consider the advice to be given to the President of the Board of Trade on the


specific question of the alteration of the quota percentages, both as regards renters and exhibitors, it is essential that we should have a small committee from that Advisory Council, and that the members of that committee should be members who are not trade representatives.

The members of that committee should, first of all, have no particular case to oppose and, I say it without any disrespect, no particular axe to grind. The committee would hear the evidence of all those who are directly interested in the industry, and as a result of that evidence come to their decision on the matter. It is of some importance that, if possible, there should be unanimous reports upon this question of the quota. It should be as unbiassed and as fair as possible. If you have 21 members settling this question, of whom 10 are directly interested in the subject under discussion, the producers', the exhibitors' and the renters' representatives, all viewing the matter from entirely different aspects and each of them naturally intent, and quite rightly so, on obtaining some advantage for their own particular section of the industry, then, however fair and honest they may be, it is not in the least likely that that condition will lead to a unanimous decision on the quota percentage question. I think that in practically every case a committee composed of those members would present a majority and a minority report. That is a very undesirable thing and must generally lead to a compromise.

It is infinitely better to have a small committee without trade representotives on it and to get a unanimous report. It is unfair to have trade representatives on such a committee. I think the House will agree with me, on principle, that on any committee of inquiry of this sort there should not be members who are to be judges in their own case. That is not fair to them, and on this particular question there is no necessity for it. In saying this, I do not desire in the slightest degree to cast any aspersion on the integrity or honesty of purpose of any single representative of the trade and those directly interested in the film industry who have sat for the last 10 years on the Advisory Council under the present Act; far from it. We had in Committee the evidence of the hon. Member

for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine), who has been a member of that Advisory Council during the whole period of 10 years. He paid a very high tribute to the trade members on that Advisory Council, and I am sure the House will accept that tribute without qualification; I most certainly do.

But in his speech to the Committee the hon. Member for East Dorset, whilst pointing out that the trade members had been of the highest possible character and had carried out their duties with strict impartiality, stated that it had been difficult on some occasions and almost embarrassing to them to vote on certain points. He went on to say that trade members are in an invidious position on any committee and that they should sit in a purely advisory capacity and should not be asked to vote. He was not condemning those members but pointing out that if they are on this committee they are being placed in an impossible position. That opinion, coming as it does from an hon. Member who has had 10 years' experience, is the strongest possible argument which I can produce in favour of my Amendment. I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the President of the Board of Trade, and I ask the House confidently to accept it.

8.55 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie: I beg to second the Amendment.
In the earlier stages of the Bill I had some leaning towards a commission such as was proposed by hon. Members opposite rather than an advisory committee, but on balance I thought the committee was the better proposal. But I feel that a committee of 20 will be a very cumbrous affair and a body which will not be hable to give unanimous advice to the President of the Board of Trade. I think if the lay members of the committee could form a sub-committee among themselves and consider the pros and cons of any proposal, they will be more likely to give the best possible advice to the President as regards this question than would be the case if the whole committee had to give an opinion. In that case I am afraid there would be always a majority and a minority report. That, I am sure, is not the wish of the President of the Board of Trade. For those reasons I am prepared to support the Amendment.

8.56 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot invite the House to encourage the Amendment. Many of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) and the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) are criticisms of the construction of the Films Council.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am not criticising the Films Council but I suggest that in the construction of the Advisory Council it would be much better to have a sub-committee to go into the particular question of the alteration of quota percentages, and that it should be formed of the non-trade representatives of the council.

The Solicitor-General: I did not misunderstand the hon. and gallant Member. His was a criticism of the type of council which Parliament has decided to set up, and in regard to this particular matter this is one of the most important functions they have to perform. They have the right to give advice to the President of the Board of Trade who will bring before Parliament an Order, the effect of which will be to repeal or alter the Schedule to the Bill. I cannot conceive of a more important function for this Advisory Council, and to say that this function should be entrusted to a committee of the council seems to me to be paying scant respect to the duty they are being asked to perform. But the matter does not end there, because the Amendment is that the quota committee is to be selected by the council, so that Parliament will ultimately have to rely on the advice of people who have been selected by the council which is to be set up.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I really cannot follow the Solicitor-General. The members of the council are to be appointed by the Board of Trade, but the Board of Trade does not say that such and such members must decide this or that matter, and that so-and-so are not permitted to do this and that. They are there to carry out the duties of the council, I should like to ask the Solicitor-General whether he is in favour of people being judges of their own case?

The Solicitor-General: The last observation of the hon. and gallant Member emphasises what I said at first, that he is criticising the construction of the council, he is objecting to the council

which consists in part of people who are interested in the trade. I understand his point on that matter. I am endeavouring to point out that here you have a council of 20 members, and the Amendment proposes that in the exercise of one of their most important functions they shall be reduced to four, and that the choice of these four shall be made by the council itself. That is derogating from the advantage which the President of the Board of Trade may expect to have from the advice of the council and from the advantage which Parliament may also expect to have from their advice on the matter. The point of view of the Government on the constitution of the council has been stated so often that even if it were relevant on this Amendment it would not be necessary to repeat it, but we feel that the presence of members of the trade upon the council will in itself be valuable in enabling the council to give advice to the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment is certainly not asked for by the trade and would result in the advice the President receives being much less valuable than advice from the council which is contemplated in the Bill.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I hope the Solicitor-General will answer my specific question about the advisability of members of the trade being judges in their own case. I should also like to ask him whether he attaches any weight to the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) who, from his experience of 10 years on the Advisory Committee, said that on occasions it was very embarrassing for these members to vote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have allowed the hon. and gallant Member to interrupt three or four times, but he must not make another speech.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I was only putting those two questions to the Solicitor-General and asking him to deal with them.

The Solicitor-General: I do not desire to burke any point, but the criticism of the hon. and gallant Member of the council is not relevant on this Clause at all. Having decided upon a council which is to embody members of the trade it seems to me that to delegate to a portion of that council the main function of the council is a reflection on the capacity of the council to discharge the


functions for which it has been set up. There are representative and non-representative members on the council, each balancing the other, and the chairman has a casting vote, and the knowledge of those engaged in the trade may in some circumstances be of vital importance to enable the council to make up their mind.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. and gallant Member is at least consistent in that he supported the proposal to appoint a commission with wide powers. I do not know whether he went into the Lobby in support of it. As it is, the Films Council itself is weak enough. It would be absurd for the Board of Trade to discuss such an important matter as the altering of the quota with a sub-committee of the Films Council. I think the effect of this Clause would be neutralised if the Board were to consider the opinion of a mere subcommittee.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I cannot help thinking that the Solicitor-General is right in the argument that he has made. One of the most important decisions that will have to be taken under the Bill when it becomes an Act cannot be entrusted to a sub-committee. Much as we might like to have a different procedure, if this procedure is to work properly we must rely upon the whole Films Council. As the Government have made it moderately clear that they intend to rely upon the independent members, we may take it that if there is any difference of opinion on the council as to what the quota should be, they will have regard to the views expressed by those members.

Amendment negatived.

9.7 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 15, line 37, to leave out "Provided that," and to insert "(3)."
I think the House will find it convenient to consider together this Amendment, the Amendment in page 15, line 40 —leave out "said Schedule," and insert "First Schedule to this Act"—and the three Amendments at the top of page 907 of the Order Paper—in page 16, line 6, leave out "twenty-five," and insert "thirty"; in line 7, leave out "five," and insert "seven-and-a-half"; in line 8, leave out "fifteen," and insert

"twenty." This group of Amendments, like practically all the Amendments which I have moved to-night, fulfils one of the many promises which we gave on the Committee stage. These Amendments give effect to the undertaking that the maximum level to which the exhibitors' quota on both long and short films may be raised on the periodical revisions required by the Board should be increased from the present figure of 20 per cent. for long films and 15 per cent. for short films to 30 per cent. for long films and 20 per cent. for short films. In addition, they also raise the lower limit below which the exhibitors' quota on short films cannot be decreased from the figure of 5 per cent., where it now stands, to 7½ per cent. During the proceedings in the Committee, we raised the initial quota from 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent. and therefore, we think there can be no conceivable reason for enabling it to be revised below that initial quota. I hope the House will accept this group of Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 40, leave out "said Schedule," and insert "First Schedule to this Act."— [Captain Wallace.]

9.10 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie: I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, to leave out "less than twenty per cent. or more than thirty per cent.," and to insert:
In respect of the period set out in paragraph (a) of this Sub-section less than twenty per cent or more than thirty per cent.;
In respect of the period set out in paragraph (b) of this Sub-section, less than twenty-five per cent. or more than thirty-five per cent.;
In respect of the period set out in paragraph (c) of this Sub-section, less than thirty per cent. or more than forty-five per cent.

This Amendment, while introducing a somewhat new principle in the fixing of quota percentages, deals primarily with the renters' quota. There have been several references to renters in the discussions to-day, but I think it is as well to ask, who is a renter? I heard such a person referred to this afternoon as being a wholesaler, but I have always thought of the renter as being a middleman. I think it is generally felt that middlemen make decent profits, and in the discussions on the Coal Bill a short time ago, I


heard it said that they make too much profit; but I suggest that in the film industry, the middleman is the person who takes the least risk, and he also happens to be primarily an importer of foreign goods, in that out of every 100 films shown on British screens, 80 are foreign and only 20 are British. Under this Bill as it stands, that meagre 20 per cent. is to be reduced to 15 per cent. during the first year of the operation of the Bill.

The Amendment deals with the renters. It has never been pretended that the renters' quota was anything but a tax on the renter of foreign films for the profits which he derives from showing those films in this country. Those profits amount to no less than £9,000,000 a year. I would remind the House that the greater part of the money which goes to the renter of foreign films comes out of the pockets of the wage earners of this country. A large number of the renters of foreign films are virtually nothing more than subsidiary companies of foreign producers. As a result of that, and as a result of a loophole in the Income Tax law, which I have often pointed out to the Government, roughly £9,000,000 go abroad every year as profits from exhibition, without having contributed one farthing to the British Exchequer. I am informed that if this Bill is passed as it is, that amount may very well be increased to £10,000,000.

As far as the renters' quota is concerned, it is merely a matter of political expediency as to how much one taxes the renter for the privilege of using the British market. I suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that if the renters' quota were put up to 50 per cent., the renter would still find it worth his while to fulfil it. I have made these remarks merely to show what is the feeling behind this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is twofold. In the first place, it is designed to give greater confidence to film producers by providing an assurance that in the second and third reviews provided for in the Bill, the producer will have an increasingly favourable quota. As the Bill stands the Films Council, from a basis of 15 per cent., can review upwards after the first year and at the three prescribed periods. But it need not necessarily review upwards, and I suggest that as the quota to-day is 20 per cent., and as it is now proposed to start off at the lower figure of 15 per

cent., at least some definite assurance should be given by this House that, as the years go on, the quota will mount up and not stand still.

The second object of the Amendment is to enable the Government to give permissive power for the quotas to be raised to higher levels than those which are provided for at present in the Schedules so that if, after several years have passed, the circumstances justify them in doing so, the Council will be able to take more courageous steps than those contemplated at present by the Board of Trade. I have a definite fear that many hon. Members, and possibly even my right hon. and gallant Friend as well, have a certain bias against British pictures. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That impression has certainly been conveyed both in the Committee and in the House.

Captain Wallace: I must repudiate emphatically on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself, any suggestion of that kind. I defy the hon. Gentleman to find anything in the records of the Committee or of the House which would give that impression.

Sir A. Baillie: I apologise to my right hon. and gallant Friend for having brought him into it, but we all know, in point of fact, that British pictures have been given a very bad reputation in one way and another. However, I do not propose to pursue that point now, although I may refer to it at a later stage if we discuss the question of exhibitors' quotas. In order to give the background of the situation in which the film industry finds itself to-day, I may be allowed to mention some statistics comparing the position to-day with that of 1929, the year after the present Act came into operation. The number of sound studios in 1929 was only 19, and by 1936 that number had risen to 70. In 1929, the amount of money involved in the picture business was about £500,000. To-day the amount of money which has been spent on film studios alone is £4,500,000. I would once again remind hon. Members that during the 10 years of the operation of the present Act some 10,000 skilled technicians have been turned off, and that to-day 8,000 of those are not employed. I do not mind, should there be any lack of confidence in the capability of the British producer to satisfy the exhibitors'


quota, but I would ask the House to accept the Amendment which "steps up" the renters' quota over the period covered by this Measure, because in that way at least the renter will be able to ensure that some of the unused capacity of the British film studios will be used and some of those 8,000 technicians taken into employment again.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to second the Amendment.
On an earlier Amendment I gave some reasons for the belief that there is ample capacity in the studios of this country for producing a much greater output of British films. The main thing required is incentive. The Government are endeavouring in this Bill to provide incentive. If it is proposed to use machinery for that purpose, it might as well be used thoroughly. There is no good doing this in a half-hearted manner. Some people may call this Protection, but it is a misuse of words to suggest that there is an analogy between these proposals and what we ordinarily speak of as Protection as opposed to Free Trade. One might as well say that a person who wears clothes is a Protectionist. It seems to me that, to obtain results, it is necessary to proceed in this matter whole-heartedly, particularly if you believe, as I do, that the capacity exists in the country. The Amendment increases the quota at different periods, towards the point suggested by the Moyne Committee, and we must bear in mind the recommendations made by that committee after careful study. They looked for a quota of 50 per cent. towards the end of the period. The Amendment proposes to achieve that by stages. It does not endeavour to legislate from the beginning, but enables the Films Council to review the possibilities of the situation from time to time. I feel that if we adopt an Amendment of this kind we shall do something effective for the encouragement of British films and of employment in the industry

9.23 p.m.

Captain Wallace: The House will realise, as has been very clearly explained by my hon. Friends, that this Amendment and the following Amendment on the Paper, which it may be convenient to consider at the same time, aim

at increasing gradually, during each revision period, the upper limits within which renters' and exhibitors' quotas can be varied. I appreciate the laudible desire of my hon. Friends who have sponsored the Amendment, but the House must have some regard to the general question of how far the British film industry should be protected, even if we use that word in the sense suggested by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. The film industry is, after all, the servant of the public, and the public, if they prefer to see American films, are entitled to see them. The only legitimate object of a Measure such as this is to rectify the position into which the British film industry got—largely as a result of the cessation of production during the War when our competitors on the other side of the Atlantic were able to get ahead of us—and to give the industry a chance of competing on fair terms with its rivals.
As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in Committee, if in the future circumstances arose which would justify a renters' and exhibitors' quota in excess of the levels now proposed, the situation would have changed to a fundamental extent, and in those circumstances it would be only right and proper to come to Parliament again and ask for fresh legislation. It may be added that if the position of the production industry at some future date during the currency of this Act is such that the Films Council, having taken into account the views of all its members, should come to my right hon. Friend and recommend with anything like unanimity that a higher renters' and exhibitors' quota than 30 per cent. on long films was justifiable, the question whether the situation had so changed that further legislation was required would obviously arise. I think the House should appreciate the Government's position, particularly in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has withdrawn the earlier Amendment upon which we set some store because he thought the exhibitors might be prejudicially affected.
The House should realise in these circumstances that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Sir A. Baillie) envisages a renters' quota as high as 45 per cent. and an exhibitors' quota which might rise to the same level. The actual evidence given


before the Moyne Committee nearly two years ago, when the industry was in a more flourishing condition than it is now, was to the effect that an ultimate quota for renters of 35 per cent. and an ultimate quota for exhibitors of 33⅓ per cent. were desirable. It has been suggested also on numerous occasions that the ultimate aim which we should set ourselves in this quota question should be the reduction or abolition of the renters' quota altogether; and whilst a renters' quota is regarded as necessary in the early years until British production is able to make all the British films required, when that day arrives—and everybody in all parts of the House hopes it may arrive soon— and the market is no longer dependent on foreign films, it is suggested that in those circumstances the renters' quota might be reduced. The Amendment would, of course, make any proposal of that kind impossible, because, instead of allowing the renters' quota to be diminished during the 10 years' currency of the Act, these Amendments provide that any review should increase that quota by stages.
If the Films Council, after hearing the trade interests, can make anything like a unanimous recommendation in favour of a higher exhibitors' quota at any revision stage, I think it will be obvious to anybody who follows the proceedings that the President of the Board of Trade will be only too delighted to lay the necessary order before this House, and therefore there is no reason at all to assume that the maximum levels to which the quotas can be raised could not be realised in practice, if in the opinion of this body, on whose opinion and on whose work we set so much store, it should be done. We do not think in those circumstances it is right to put the possible revision of the quota so high, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir A. Baillie: On a point of Order. May I ask a question? The hon. and gallant Gentleman in replying to this Amendment on the renters' quota also made a reply on the situation affecting the exhibitors' quota. I raise the question because I want to make some remarks on the exhibitors' quota, where the principle involved is very different indeed from the principle involved in the renters' quota.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be in order, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Front Bench was in order; but I understand from Mr. Speaker that the hon. Baronet's second Amendment would fall on the rejection of the first one.

9.31 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: My right hon. Friend has said that we should have some regard to the general question of how far the British film industry should be protected. I quite agree. The object of this Bill is to give protection to the British film industry, and as the American film industry now controls at least 75 per cent. of the film industry in this country, there is ample room for the protection of the British film industry. In this Bill it is our desire to build up a British film industry in order that it may compete on somewhat fairer terms than it does at present with the American films, and we are doing it through the renters' quota. There is to-day no difficulty whatever in fulfilling a renters' quota of 20 or 25 per cent., or more. Everything is available here for turning out sufficient films, and the finance has to be found by the renter, so the difficulty of finance does not come into this question.
So far as the exhibitor is concerned, the greater the percentage in the renters' quota the greater choice of British films has the exhibitor got; it is all to his advantage, not to his disadvantage. But unless an Amendment on these lines is accepted the British producers in this country will have no assurance whatever that the renters' quota during the whole of the 10 years will be advanced even 1 per cent. above the level at which it stands to-day, which is 20 per cent. At any time during that period of 10 years the Board of Trade can reduce the quota to 20 per cent. That is not much encouragement to the producer. He is never certain what is going to happen. If one examines Part I of the First Schedule, which is undoubtedly concerned with this matter, it will be seen that the renters' quota rises by increments until, in 1947, it stands at 30 per cent., and if one looks at that Schedule without fully understanding the whole Bill, one is liable to think that such increases will necessarily take place, that the producer is assured that year by year, or for a period of years, his quota percentage will go


up, and that he will have the encouragement to increase his production. But that is not so. Under this Clause it will be possible for the Board of Trade to alter the figures in the Schedule at any of the three review periods, and to alter the renters' quota down again to 20 per cent., if they wish to do so. The Board of Trade surely cannot be oblivious of the fact that that power which they possess under the Clause may easily result in their being subjected to continual pressure of the most undesirable kind.
The foreign renter looks upon his quota obligation—that is, the British films that he has to take under the quota—as a tax upon him for the privilege of showing American films in this country. His interest is not in disposing of British films; his interest is in disposing of American films. He has to have British films because they are imposed upon him by law, but he has no incentive whatever to acquire a larger number of British films, and so far as encouragement to the British industry is concerned, the higher we can make this percentage and thus force the renter to acquire British films, the better it will be for the British film industry. It is obvious that he looks upon his quota obligation as a direct tax upon him, and his whole aim and object will be to keep the percentage as low as possible, so that he will use every means at his disposal, when these reviews come up, to induce the Board of Trade to reduce that percentage quota which he has to fulfil. He must do that; and under this Clause it is possible for the Board of Trade to reduce the renters' quota back again at any time to the level at which it stands to-day.
I think that is a very bad thing for British production. We are endeavouring to build up the British film industry by means of this renters' quota, and surely there should be provision in this Bill to ensure to the producer a steady rise in the renters' quota. He ought to be certain that by the increments laid down in the Schduele he will have an increase in his production, but by this Clause it stands in the power of the Board of Trade to reduce it. If the Amendment is accepted, as it ought to be, at any rate the producer will be assured that at each review there will be an increase in this quota. I would point out that the Moyne Committee maintained that there was no

reason why, if the British film production developed satisfactorily, quotas of at least 50 per cent. should not be imposed. Then why all this temerity on the part of the Board of Trade? Surely we should agree in this House that permissive powers at least should be given to raise the renters' quota to 45 per cent. after six years of the working of the Act, if circumstances justify it. This is only permissive. Why should we be afraid to give the President of the Board of Trade permissive powers to raise it, if circumstances allow such a thing to be done and the trade is capable of fulfilling it?
With regard to the exhibitors' quota, on which I do not know whether I am permitted to speak, it is rather more important perhaps than the renters' quota. The exhibitors' quota starts under the Bill at 12½ per cent., but at present it is 20 per cent. What a retrograde step! We go back from 20 to 12½ per cent. as a start, and it has been 20 per cent. for the last two years, during which time the industry has been equipped so that it is capable of producing far more films than will fill a 20 per cent. or greater quota. Yet we have this retrograde step. My point is that, by having an exhibitors' quota at so low a figure as 12½ per cent.—and the renters' quota is 15 per cent.—all British films made over and above those required for that quota will be made to compete in a saturated market. The exhibitors' quota can always and easily be filled from the renters, and there is no protection whatever for the voluntarily made British film. It is the voluntary film that we ought to encourage, but it gets no protection at all. The renters' quota is always greater than the exhibitors' quota.
In these conditions it is not likely that you can anticipate that films in any large numbers will be made over and above the number required to fulfil the renters' quota, if the Bill passes as it stands. Of course, some will be made. The big producers who have a large circuit in which to show them, will continue to make them, but the ordinary producer will not, and very few voluntary films will be made. The risk will be too great; the competition with the renters' quota films will be too unfair. People will not risk their money in making numbers of expensive films for which there is such a ridiculously unprotected market, and the result will be that when the first review takes place in two


years' time the exhibitors will claim that insufficient films have been made. The Board of Trade will then decide that it is best for everyone that the exhibitors' quota shall remain at 15 per cent. for the next two years. That is the danger of having this low 12½ per cent. quota. You at once reduce the production of British films, and it is on the production of British films in this country that the quota for the following years is to be decided. By starting at such a low level, you give no encouragement to the producing industry in this country. They will not put their money into the production of voluntary films, the films will not be made, and automatically you will reduce, over this whole period of 10 years, the number of British films which will be made. It will be very damaging to the industry. Even as in the case of the renters' quota, if a rise is given at one review by this Clause, it may be lowered again at the next.
Again, there is no certainty about this matter. Under this Clause they may go right back again to their low limit. There will be continual uncertainty, and there will be log-rolling and lobbying to have the quota raised. On the other hand, if the Amendment is accepted it will give reasonable security to the producers that there will be some rise in the quota over the next 10 years. It will also give an assurance to the exhibitors. The figures in the Schedule could be slightly lower if the circumstances required it. Finally, at the third review the Board of Trade could impose quotas reasonably approximating the limits thought possible by the Moyne Committee. I would beg my right hon. Friend not to be so timid in this matter, but to put more trust in the capability of the film industry in this country to produce the films. The industry has everything necessary to do it, and there is no reason why it should not prosper, as other industries have done, if it is only given a chance.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I think, perhaps, that, from the point of view of political discretion, I ought to have kept out of this family quarrel and allowed hon. Members supporting the National Government to fight it out among themselves.

Mr. Mander: I hope the hon. Member is not including me in that observation.

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Member is only an occasional supporter of the National Government I exclude him. I am not sure that a substantial case can be made out for the Amendment because, if the confidence exuding from the hon. Member who moved it and the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) is fully justified with regard to the production of films, there ought to be no worry or concern on their part. If the Cinematograph Films Council are satisfied that during the first period after which a review will take place the producer can supply the maximum permissible in the Schedule, there is nothing to prevent a recommendation to the Board of Trade to allow the renter's and exhibitor's quotas to be lifted to the maximum. Therefore, it is merely a question of what the producers can do and what they will do. If they can and will do what the Mover and Seconder suggest they can do, I have no doubt that the House will always be willing to respond to a call of that description. The experience of the last 10 years shows us that the producers thought they had a shielded market, money was available in many quarters, and, as I read in one document sent to me this morning, money was flowing into the industry like water running down a hill, and it was being lost almost as rapidly as it was finding its way into production. The net result is that this year the President of the Board of Trade has had to recognise, not the potential capacity for production, but the actual productive capacity as he knows it to be. What is the actual production at the present moment? The Mover of the Amendment told us that less than 10 per cent. of the total studio capacity was in use. Why is that?

Sir A. Baillie: Because of this Bill.

Mr. Williams: If that observation is strictly in accordance with the facts, the President of the Board of Trade has fixed the quotas on the present production. I want to know whether the producers have acted because of the Bill, or whether the President of the Board of Trade has acted because of the producers?

Captain A. Evans: The hon Member has told us that the present quota in the Bill has been fixed by the President of the Board of Trade because of the production under the Act, but surely the hon. Gentleman will remember that in 1936,


under the Act, the quota required was 20 per cent. but, in fact, the British producers produced no less than 27½ per cent. If the statement of the hon. Gentleman is correct, I do not understand why it has been necessary for the President of the Board of Trade to reduce that quota to 12½ per cent.

Mr. Williams: The answer is very simple. The President of the Board of Trade would not have dared to reduce the renters' or exhibitors' quotas unless it had some definite relation to the present day output of films.

Sir A. Baillie: Is it not a fact that the President of the Board of Trade and other speakers have pointed out that the main reason for reducing the quota was the onerous condition he thought it was putting upon the foreign renter?

Mr. Williams: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was so gentle in his treatment of the foreign renter as the hon. Member has suggested. The legislation has been based on the best calculation that he could make. Every Member must know now that when the quota was 10 per cent. the producers provided 14.7 per cent., and when it was 20 per cent. they provided 27½ per cent. There is a clear indication that there was no disinclination on the part of the exhibitors to exhibit British films if they were worth showing. Why, therefore, has the output fallen so rapidly? It has been said many times, and it perhaps needs to be said again, that so much of the money has gone to the financiers and so little has gone into the production of films, that the output of films now is less than 50 per cent. of what it was. The result is that there are 8,000 out of 10,000 would-be employés in the industry unemployed. If a false sense of security is to be provided for the industry again is it not conceivable that there will be another long period of financial diarrhoea and that the finance provided will go into the pockets, not of the producers, but of those who are willing to take advantage of every opportunity that comes their way.
I am just an anxious as, and probably more anxious than, the Mover of the Amendment to see British film production on a sound basis in which it is making to capacity and providing a maximum quantity of good films of entertainment

value. I want to see these employés reengaged as quickly as possible, but it is no use creating a false sense of security, no use going up into the sky and coming down with a heavy wallop, as was the case during the last 10-year period. If the producers will take advantage of that part of the Measure, it is open to them to produce as many good films of real entertainment value as they can up to a maximum of a 30 per cent. quota, that will be the best indication to the Cinematograph Films Council, on which the producers have their representation; and if they can make out a good case to the Council that they are entitled to the maximum quota permissible under Clause 15, then, instead of waiting for the end of the 10-year period, they ought to get it at an earlier date. If they can exceed what is the maximum permissible under Clause 15 far earlier than the end of the 10-year period, Parliament ought then to be ready to help the producers, seeing that the producers are helping themselves by producing really decent pictures and placing the industry on a solid foundation instead of building castles in the air as they have been doing.

9.56 p.m.

Captain A. Evans: I rise to support the two hon. and gallant Members in the proposals they have made, and after listening to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) I feel sure that it will be a great encouragement to admirers of British films to know that the fighting spirit of the British Navy has permeated the British film industry and is on the "quota deck." If I understood the reply of my right hon. Friend aright I think he was rather afraid to accept the Amendment on account of the interests of exhibitors. Perhaps he would be interested to know the views of the late President of the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, a gentleman named T. H. Fligelstone, who comes from Cardiff. He gave evidence before the Moyne Committee and said:
The exhibiting section of the cinematograph industry has very little, if anything, to complain of in the films produced by the British renting companies. The films produced to-day by the British companies are standing on their feet.
I doubt whether the President of an important association like that, speaking


in his official capacity, would venture to express such a view unless he were confident that he had the unanimous support of his members, or at least that it represented the views of the majority. Again, we have only to examine very casually a list of British films produced in recent years to satisfy ourselves that his statement was more than correct. No doubt hon. Members who are also film fans have had an opportunity of seeing such films as "I was a Spy," "The Scarlet Pimpernel," "Sanders of the River," "The Private Life of Henry VIII," "Catherine the Great," "The Thirty-nine Steps," and a very fine film indeed which I believe was called "Educated Evans." I am satisfied that such films would not have been possible but for the protection and encouragement which the industry derived from the original Act.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said he did not understand why the production of British films had fallen off in the later years, but thought it a sufficient reason for reducing the present quota from 20 to 12½ per cent. I wonder whether he has considered the uncertainty which must have existed in the minds of producers when they realised that the legislation under which they had built up their industry was shortly coming to an end, and that they had no knowledge of what would happen in the future, and what plan would be approved by Parliament further to protect and advance the industry. What have the producers been able to do in the past? The Act laid down that in 1930 the quota should be 10 per cent., and British producers were able to produce 14½ per cent. In 1931 the same quota existed and 16.7 per cent. of films were produced. In 1932 the quota was advanced to 12½ per cent., but the producers were able to go up to a figure of 22 per cent. and the production figure steadily increased until it reached in 1936 the figure of 27.9 per cent.
What is it that my hon. and gallant Friend is inviting my right hon. Friend to do? He is inviting him to fix a minimum permissive quota below which the quota cannot be reduced, but above which it can be raised at the discretion of my right hon. Friend. Let us examine the position of producers under this Bill. They have to obtain finance, a point

which has been touched upon by practically every speaker, but what encouragement is it for a British producer to make plans ahead—and films have to be planned not only months ahead, but sometimes years ahead—if he realises that by the time his plans come to fruition there is a possibility of my right hon. Friend reducing the quota, so that instead of having a market of, I will say for the sake of argument, 25 to 30 per cent. available, the market has been reduced to 12½ or 15 per cent.? I understand the real purpose of the Bill is to encourage the production of British pictures, and I feel that a British producer has a right to ask the Government to give him some security of tenure, and I feel that on reflection my right hon. Friend and the Board of Trade will agree with the views which have been expressed.

10.3 p.m.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: I had not, like some of my hon. Friends, the advantage of being a member of the Committee which considered this Bill, but as I have two very large studios in my constituency, and a large number of my constituents are now out of work owing to a lack of proper protection for the British film-producing industry, I should like to say a few words. I was under the impression that this was a Bill to protect the British film industry. I have listened to a good part of the Debate, and I am still inquiring where protection really comes in. The Government are reducing the compulsory quota for British films which was thought good 10 long years ago; in other words, they are going to allow more American films to come in here. I should have thought the plain and simple, and perhaps the most honest, way to get protection for British production was to put an import duty on the foreign product, and, if you like, to take that revenue and subsidise British film's of proved quality. Then you could get the British film industry on its legs, so that it could compete with foreign importation. But the National Government, in its wisdom, has decided against that course, and goes in for this procedure, which is really too complicated for one who is not immersed in the commercial transactions which this Bill involves.
I want to make this plea for the workers in the industry. They have gone into what is really a blind-alley trade. They are highly technical men who have


brought themselves to a high state of efficiency, and they have been carrying on in the hope of getting good employment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench seemed to lay such little stress upon the employment of these people. We hoped from a speaker on the front Labour benches to hear more about people who are out of a job. I hope that my hon. Friend will push this Amendment to a Division, when I shall support him in the Lobby.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendments made:

In page 16, line 6, leave out "twenty-five," and insert "thirty."

In line 7, leave out "five," and insert "seven and a-half."

In line 8, leave out "fifteen," and insert "twenty."—[Captain Wallace.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Restriction on blind booking.)

10.7 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie: I beg to move, in page 17, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that if at any time it appears to the Board of Trade that by reason of the restrictions imposed under this Section the bookings of British films are being prejudiced in comparison with the bookings of foreign films owing to the fact that such foreign films have been exhibited and published outside Great Britain before being trade-shown the board may, after consulting the Cinematograph Films Council, lay before Parliament the draft of an order providing that the prohibition imposed by this Section shall not apply to any undertaking by an exhibitor or exhibitors to take delivery of a British film for public exhibition at a date not being later than twelve months after the date on which the undertaking is given if reasonable arrangements have been made to satisfy the exhibitor or exhibitors concerned that the film, when completed, will have special merit for entertainment.

Clause 17 deals with the restriction of blind booking of films, and the Amendment aims at securing a certain amount of blind booking for British producers. To that extent the Amendment might appear revolutionary, but I think I shall be able to show that it is nothing of the kind. The object of Clause 17 is to make sure that every film producer, when he sells his picture to a renter, must start on an equal basis with others. In point of fact, the matter does not work out in that way, and it is fairly easy to see why. Out of every 100 films sold, 80 are from

abroad and have probably been produced and exhibited for three months before the trade show in this country. They may have been exhibited in America for four or five months. Their box-office value is, therefore, known to every exhibitor and renter in this country. They have been publicised in the trade papers and every exhibitor knows all about them. Exhibitors who are accustomed to dealing with certain renters will know that they are going to have the picture when it comes here, immediately after it has been trade-shown, without in any sense of the word contravening existing legislation or anything that we may impose in the Bill. Exhibitors may make a mental reservation: "This picture will do for my hall on a certain date." Many hon. Members know that that is called "pencilling it in."

On the other hand, until the day of the trade show no one can have any idea of the merits of a British picture. It has been seen by nobody until the trade show and it has not been possible to give it advance publicity. When its starting date arrives, the foreign film has an advantage over it of four, five or it may be nine months. When the British producer wants to sell his picture through the renter to the exhibitor, he finds that the exhibitor requires a very long period before he can show it. The object of the Amendment is to make everything fair to all concerned. I submit to my hon. and learned Friend that, as the law stands to-day, it gives a flying start to the foreign producer. The Amendment is, therefore, by no means revolutionary, because it sets out merely to restore to the British producer the state of fairness and justice.

It has one more advantage; in fact, it has a double advantage. If the Amendment were accepted, British producers would be allowed to make arrangements with exhibitors in this country. It would be only permissive upon the exhibitor. If I were a producer, for instance, I should be allowed to go to Mr. Ostrer and say, "I am going to produce four pictures in a row. These are the stories and these are the casts. Will you, after the trade show in three or four months' time, book this picture for me?" That would promptly get over one of the difficulties with which we are confronted to-day, that of obtaining the necessary finance.


The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that it was the financier that was spending the money, but I think he meant to say that it is the financiers who have lost the money.

Mr. T. Williams: Who finds the money?

Sir A. Baillie: The financiers.

Mr. T. Williams: Who lost it?

Sir A. Baillie: The producers lost it and the financiers found it. The Amendment would facilitate the financing of production, because there would be more certainty of early exhibition, and the gap between the production of the picture and the time when the money comes back would be minimised. For those reasons I recommend the Amendment to my right hon. and gallant Friend and to the House as a whole. One of the difficulties in British film production laid before the Moyne Committee was the obtaining of finance, and another was the unfair competition which results from exhibitors' dates in this country being booked up for long periods ahead by American films. I think the Amendment would obviate those difficulties. Whenever I have discussed the Amendment with people in the picture business, exhibitors, producers or renters, they have not been able to find any snag in it.

10.14 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so I thoroughly endorse the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend. I think it is most desirable, if possible, that the British and the American film should start with the same chance of being booked up, but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, and as must be within the knowledge of every Member of the House, American films, before they come over here and are trade-shown to our exhibitors, have already been exhibited, not only in America, but in other parts of the world. Therefore, their quality is known, their entertainment value is known, and it is possible to find out, from the receipts in the cinema house, how each film has paid. Such a film, when it is trade-shown here, has an immense initial advantage over the British film which is being shown for the first time. This Amendment does not mean discrimination against the American film, but merely justice for the British film. The object is to enable the British

film to start from scratch with the American. If the Amendment is carried, it will be possible for the exhibitor, before the British film is made, to inquire about it and satisfy himself that, when it is available, it will be a good film and he can book it up. That will be no disadvantage whatever to the exhibitor, but it will certainly be of great assistance to the British film industry.

10.17 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. I understand, of course, and appreciate what my hon. Friends are trying to do, but it must be recognised that this is an extremely retrograde step. We have prohibited blind bookings, whether of American or of British films, and it would be entirely contrary to our general commercial policy in this country to discriminate between British and foreign products. That is a consideration of some importance, though I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) will not agree with it. It is not, however, the only argument which I have to adduce. I have others which I hope will satisfy him. No representation has been made asking for this provision from any of the three important sections of the trade, and it was not recommended by the Moyne Committee. The Moyne Committee recommended that the blind booking provisions should be continued, and it seems a little difficult, when it is recognised as illegal, that one should maintain these provisions as regards foreign films and not maintain them as regards British films.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Sir A. Baillie) based a good many of his observations on the suggestion that a British film did not, before the trade show, acquire any publicity at all. I do not pretend to any expert knowledge of films, but I seem to have seen some extremely good publicity about various cinema stars who have been working in Elstree and various other film centres in the neighbourhood of London, and I think that, in the matter of Press publicity, it is a little difficult to say that the British exhibitor gets no indication, before the actual trade show, of the kind of film that he may expect to see at the show. If, in fact, there is not enough publicity, that is a matter about which, surely, the trade ought to do something.

Sir A. Baillie: Is it not the fact that it is not possible for anyone to know anything about the British film until there has been a trade show? It cannot be shown in this country until there has been a trade show, whereas the American picture has been shown for months in the United States, and everything is known about it.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate that argument, but I thought my hon. Friend advanced the further argument that American films had a great deal of Press publicity, whereas British films did not. But, in my limited experience, I seem to have seen a good deal of publicity about British films.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: There is a good deal of difference between the publicity given to a film which has actually been shown and the publicity given to a film which has not been shown, on the supposition that it is a good one.

The Solicitor-General: I quite agree. It is, of course, thoroughly true that American or other foreign films have gone through the test of experience; but it is not by any means a guarantee, or passport, to British audiences that a film has been found acceptable in America. But whether that is so or not, the countervailing disadvantages of taking this very retrograde step of doing something to encourage blind booking, of which we want to see an end, are so great that the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 18.—(Restrictions on advance booking.)

10.22 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie: I beg to move, in page 17, line 42, to leave out from "date," to the end of line 43, and to insert:
(a) In the case of a film which has been publicly exhibited outside Great Britain before being trade-shown later than six months after the date on which he gives the undertaking;
(b) In the case of a British film not publicly exhibited outside Great Britain before being trade-shown later than twelve months after the date on which he gives the undertaking.
The object of this Amendment is very similar to that of the Amendment I moved just now: that is, to safeguard the interests of British producers who are

definitely in competition with foreign producers. As I have already stated, one of the handicaps of British producers is that before they produce their pictures they have to wait so long before they can get them trade-shown. Foreign producers should not be allowed to book ahead more than six months, but we know that often the British producer cannot find any date within the six months' period. I think it would be well if he could book his picture up to 12 months ahead.

10.23 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to second the Amendment.
The arguments are similar in principle to those put forward on the last Amendment.

10.24 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I regret that I cannot recommend the House to accept this Amendment. My reasons are very much the same as those given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the previous Amendment. This Amendment, as the House will appreciate, seeks to modify the advance-booking provisions by making it possible for a film which has been publicly exhibited outside Great Britain to be booked not later than six months in advance, but extending the advance-booking period from six to 12 months for British films not shown outside this country before being trade-shown. The effect of the latter part of the Amendment would be entirely retrograde in that it would be increasing the period of advance-booking from six months, in the case of British films, to 12 months. Twelve months was certainly allowed as the advance-booking period at the beginning of the 1927 Act. That was simply because it was at that time the practice of the trade to book in advance for a period as long as that, or even longer. It was generally agreed that the advance-booking of a film for this long period placed the exhibitor in an extremely unfortunate situation, and the period of advance-booking was gradually reduced from one year to six months. Actually the advance-booking period of six months has operated since 1st October, 1930, and no representations have been made to the Board of Trade by any section of the industry suggesting that this period should be extended.
The Moyne Committee recommended that advance-booking restrictions should be removed altogether, but that was one of the recommendations of the report which was opposed by all sections of the industry. I fully appreciate the reasons which induced the hon. Member to move and the hon. and gallant Member to second the Amendment. It does discriminate in favour of British films, which I am anxious to help, but apart from the fact that the whole policy of the restriction of advance-booking was devised, as I have said, to protect the small exhibitor from the clutches of a multiple organisation, I must remind the House that, to accept the Amendment would involve an internal discrimination by Statute between British and foreign producers, and, therefore, would be against our general commercial policy, and for that reason I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Day: I listened with great interest to what was said by the Mover of this Amendment, especially as he made reference to the American producers being able to make arrangements with the exhibitors with regard to the various films they had made for booking ahead. I wonder whether the Mover and the Seconder had in mind the renter and not the producer?

Sir A. Baillie: The renter of foreign films. If I used the word "producer" it was in error. I was referring to the renter.

Mr. Day: Hon. Members will remember that it was the word "producer" which the hon. Member used. People who have had some connection with the business know that the dates for British films are made as they are for American films. Although they are not booked up until trade shows, the dates are secured. That should get over the difficulty expressed by the Mover of the Amendment. When you find a good film is produced and there is a good cast, and it is a good production, whether British or foreign, the dates are secured well in advance. That does away with the suggestion that this applies only to American films.

Amendment negatived.

10.30 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 18, line 3, to leave out "for the

exhibition of," and to insert, "in so far as it provides for."

This Amendment and the next Amendment may be described as purely drafting, but it is best that I should give a short explanation. The proviso to the Clause, as drafted, could be read as removing the restriction on the making of an advanced booking agreement in respect of parts of a serial or series of films as soon as three parts of such a film have been exhibited to the public. What was intended by the proviso was that the Clause should not restrict the making of an advanced booking agreement on the part of a serial or series of films, except in respect of the first three parts. In other words, it is permissible for an agreement to be made providing for the exhibition of parts of a serial ox series beyond the third, to be exhibited at more than six months ahead, provided the first three parts are exhibited within the six months period.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 4, after "series," insert "being exhibited."—[Captain Wallace.]

CLAUSE 25.—(Determination of films to be treated as British films for purposes of registration.)

10.32 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, in page 22, to leave out lines 20 to 24, and to insert:
(b) the studio, if any, used in making the film is within His Majesty's Dominions.

This Amendment is, in effect, a drafting Amendment made as a preliminary to a new definition of "studio" in Clause 42, page 35, line 28. It provides that instead of the requirement that the studio scenes in a film have been photographed within the Empire, as in the Clause in the Bill, any studio used in making the film must be within the Empire. One of the objects of the legislation is to ensure that British studios are, as far as possible, used in the making of British films.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I should like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is attempting to carry out a promise made in Committee in connection with this Clause. If not, perhaps, he will say how he is proposing to do it. In the Committee on 16th December, when we were discussing an Amendment moved by


me concerning the definition of what part of the British Empire should be included, the President of the Board of Trade said,
I do think that after a period of 10 years we have waited a very long time for the same gesture to be made to us that we have made to the Dominions. It might be that the mere fact of this discussion taking place, and these views being aired, might improve the possibilities, but even so an Amendment somewhat on the lines of that in the name of the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and others, which enables the Board of Trade, after consulting the Films Council, to approve the inclusion in this Clause of particular Dominions at any time, is sufficiently flexible to meet that.
That is a definite promise and I should like to ask how the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to carry it out. Is it intended to carry it out in this Amendment? I cannot see how it can be. The President of the Board of Trade concluded by saying:
I suggest that it would be better to withdraw all these Amendments, and to leave me, in the light of the discussion which has taken place, to see before the next stage what I think would be the appropriate action to take, and to put the appropriate Amendment down for the consideration of the Committee." —[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A); 16th December, 1937, col. 352.]
The Moyne Committee dealt with this matter and suggested that the question should be taken up with the various Governments concerned. They point out:
It was not unnaturally anticipated that in the course of time reciprocal treatment of this kind would be given to films made in Great Britain by other parts of the Empire where film legislation might be passed.
Upstairs hon. Members argued the importance of something being done and the President undertook to put down an Amendment. I am asking the Minister to redeem that promise.

Captain Wallace: I am advised that this Amendment does redeem that promise, and that it does that in this way, that for the purpose of renters' quota studios in the Dominions will not count, but they are also in a halfway position as they are eligible for exhibitors' quotas.

Mr. Mander: I cannot see how this Amendment can refer to that question at all.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I think the point should be further elucidated. In Committee I moved an Amendment eliminating

the Dominions altogether from the Bill. It was suggested that foreigners who would want to short circuit the spirit of the Measure, could have films produced in Canada or India and other odd places within the Dominions, and that we had not the machinery to determine such an important question as whether labour costs had been fairly and squarely dealt with. I thought the easiest way out of the difficulty would be to eliminate Dominion films altogether from the Bill, so that films produced in the Dominions could be brought here and sold on their merits without regard to the quota at all.

Captain Wallace: I must offer my profound apologies to the hon. Member and to the House for having misled them. I was misinformed. This Amendment does no more than what is stated in the actual words. The promise which the President gave to the hon. Member is implemented in an Amendment to Clause 26.

Amendment agreed to.

10.39 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 26, to leave out from "than" to the end of line 30, and to insert "the requisite amount of labour costs."
This Amendment stands with later Amendments to the same Clause, and I will, if I am not out of order, deal with them all, and also with the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), in line 26. That Amendment deals with the Bill as it exists, but would not deal with the Bill as it would be amended if this series of Amendments were accepted by the House. These Amendments are brought forward by the Government in order to give effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in the Standing Committee that in the case of the more expensive type of films, a little more latitude would be allowed as regards the foreigners who could be employed in their production. In the Clause as drafted, not less than 75 per cent. of the labour costs of the film, calculated on the total labour costs after excluding the payment to any person not being a British subject, has to be paid to British subjects or persons domiciled in the Empire. In order to give more latitude to makers of British films in employing outstanding artistes and others in the production, these


Amendments permit, as an option, the payment to two foreigners to be excluded from the labour costs, and one of those foreigners must be either an actor or an actress. They can be excluded, therefore, from the costs on which the percentage qualification of the British film has to be calculated.
When the payments to these foreigners have been deducted, the Amendment provides that at least four-fifths of the balance must be paid to British subjects or people domiciled within the Empire. The House will have noticed the change from 75 per cent., as it appears in the Bill, to the fraction of three-quarters. That is of no consequence and is a drafting alteration. Clause 25, Sub-section (4), provides that where the Board of Trade are satisfied that the maker of the film took all reasonable steps to fulfil the 75 per cent. condition and that he could not fulfil it owing to exceptional circumstances, they may lower the percentage to 70. We delete that Sub-section and introduce a provision replacing the existing one as to 70 per cent., but amending the following one to the effect that in the case of a film where the proportion of labour costs normally required would be four-fifths of the total (excluding two foreigners), the Board may, in exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the maker, allow the four-fifths to be reduced to three-quarters. The other Amendments that follow are purely consequential.
The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Leyton would, of course, increase the proportion of British labour from 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. The matter was put to the trade unions after Christmas, and the Association of Cine-technicians agreed to the option, but wanted the figure to be 85 per cent., and made that a condition of their acceptance of the option. The National Association of Theatrical Employés did not agree to the option, but wanted the 75 per cent. to be raised to 85 per cent. In the opinion of the Government., an increase to 85 per cent., with the exclusion of one foreigner, would, especially at the beginning, handicap the producers of films owing to the possibility that there might be insufficient personnel available for their particular purpose. It is desirable that, in order that at the very outset especialy there should be the best possible chance

for British films in future, there should be the widest possible choice of personnel available to them.
I should add that the fact that 20 or 25 per cent. of foreign labour can be employed does not mean that the producer is obliged to employ that quantity. In any case, the regulations which govern the entry of aliens into this country have to be considered. The main object of the Bill is to increase the efficiency of the British production of films. It may be that the best way of improving on the experience of British technicians is to permit the introduction of some highly skilled foreign artists who can do something to raise the quality of British film production to that level at which we all desire to see it.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I feel that the Amendment which stands in my name ought to be pressed. I followed as best I could the rather intricate calculations given by the Solicitor-General and although they were so clearly put, I almost felt like moving the Adjournment of the Debate in order to go into the figures. At the same time, I am forced to the conclusion that the proposals put forward by the Government would be less beneficial to the technicians than the precise percentage proposed in my Amendment. That percentage would mean a definite increase in the number who would be guaranteed employment in the industry, and therefore I hope that my proposal will be accepted by the House. I must repudiate the suggestion that there is not already an ample supply of technicians for such film production as is likely in this country for some time to come. At present, 80 per cent. of British technicians are unemployed and it seems to me that the claim which has been advanced on behalf of the Government is not justified by the facts. A number of our technicians have been forced to emigrate to America and are now employed in Hollywood and elsewhere and they would be glad to be back here if they had some kind of protection or better facilities for securing employment.
I hope the House will endeavour to guarantee, not merely the interests of a certain number of financiers and producers, but the interests of those employed in the trade by insisting on a definite percentage. It is, I submit, a slur on British technicians to say that, after all


these years, they are not the same level as their American brethren. On occasion, American and other foreign technicians have been brought here only to be replaced after a short while by British technicians. We know something of the procedure of many producers and artists and we recognise that sometimes there is no real technical value at all in the entourage which some of these imported artists bring with them. I am told that the entourage may include all kinds of people down to the clapper-boy and the rat-catcher and the cocktail-mixer.
I had hoped very earnestly that the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) who, I regret is not now in his place, would support my proposal. I have had a great deal of sympathy with him during these proceedings. It reminded me very much of Casabianca, though unfortunately it does not now, because he has fled. I should like to ask him and the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie), after their various followers have failed to stand by their guns, to support this very practical and effective means of guaranteeing to a large number of efficient technicians in this country employment in the British pictures that are to be produced in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: I find that the hon. Member cannot move his Amendment. The first word that it is proposed to leave out is "seventy-five," so that if that is carried I should be unable to put the hon. Member's Amendment. I am afraid I misled him on this question.

Mr. Sorensen: If the House rejects the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member opposite, would it then be possible for my Amendment to be moved?

Mr. Speaker: No I do not think it will be possible, because it will have been moved "That those words stand part of the Bill."

10.52 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I do not think that this Amendment proposed by the Government is really very satisfactory. It is not satisfactory from the point of view of the British labour which will be employed in the films to be produced under the quota. Certain concessions have been made, it is true, but experience shows that in the

administration of the labour Clause in the past the Ministry of Labour has not always acted in the best interests of the technical workers in the trade, although that may have been their object. We have in fact found that the production of British films and the establishment in this country of a considerable number of experienced technicians, which is essential if we are to have good film-producing units, has been handicapped by the permission given to people to come into this country from abroad who are not first-class technicians themselves and who, moreover, have not been able to train our people to become first-class technicians, nor have they been able to produce good films.
The sort of thing that has happened in the past is that the interests producing films in this country have applied for permission for some foreign technician to come here to help in the production of a film. Neither I nor, I am sure, British technicians who are working in this country desire to exclude from this country any first-class person who could really help in the production of films, or who could teach the people here how to do the business better. But too often the producing interests in this country— financed, it may be, with American capital—have brought in second or third-class people. They have told the Ministry of Labour that it was essential to get such a person in, yet that person perhaps was not an outstanding man in his own trade in America. It has very often happened that the person came here because he had got into some trouble in America, had been in disgrace, and it was thought by those who employed him in Hollywood that it would be a good thing to get him out of Hollywood for six months or a year, so that he could go back with a better reputation.
That man has come over here, has been employed in our own producing studios, and has been patently inferior to some of our own first-class people. His work has sometimes gone some way towards spoiling a good film, and sometimes, before the production of a film has been finished, he has been replaced by an English director or technician. There is one case, at least, on record where a man was brought into this country as a first-class director. The Ministry of Labour gave permission, he went to the film studios, and he started work. Complaint


was made by certain interests—probably an English director, though I do not know—who went to the Minister and said, "Why should this man come in and work here? He is no use, and we have any number of people who are far better." The answer of the Ministry of Labour was, "We are told that this man is a first-class director of films." It was made quite plain that the man had never directed a film in his life, and—

Captain Wallace: If I may interrupt the hon. Member, he has not argued that the rejection of these Amendments would help any of these people of whom he is speaking, and I cannot see that his remarks have any actual relevance to this particular series of Amendments.

Mr. Strauss: They surely have relevance in this way, that the Amendments do not meet a serious situation, that they are not adequate for that purpose, and surely on those grounds I am in order in suggesting that these Amendments are no good or do not go as far as they ought to do. If we are to have in England the production of really good films, we must give opportunities, not only for our artists and directors, but also for our technicians, to show their mettle. Up to now it has usually been the case that our very good people have been prevented from taking positions of responsibility in the production of films because those positions have been a monopoly of foreigners from other countries, although those foreigners have not been really first-class people or as good as our own. That process has seriously handicapped the establishment here of good producing units and first-class technicians, who are so essential if we are to establish that industry firmly in this country.
I maintain, therefore, that these Amendments are not satisfactory, unless perhaps we may get some assurance that they will be administered through the Ministry of Labour in the future with greater care than has been the case in the past. I have no quarrel with the principle laid down here. I have quarrelled with the details, and more particularly am I anxious about these Amendments because the method of administering a similar scheme in the past has been exceedingly bad. If we could have some assurance from the Government

that all applications to the Ministry of Labour in the future for the employment of foreign technicians on films which are to count for British quota will be most scrupulously examined, that the standard of ability of the technicians or artists coming into this country will be looked at very carefully, and that the number of unemployed of technicians or artists here of similar or superior ability will also be considered, then I think I would not have very much quarrel with the Amendments. It is really an important matter, as the establishment of a good film industry in this country depends very largely on the administration of this Clause as well as on the actual proportions laid down by the Amendments.

10.59 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: We are anxious not to keep the House late to-night, and I suggest to hon. Members opposite that we might conclude our proceedings in a very few moments by not going further than Clause 25. I would like to assure the hon. Member who has just sat down that with a good deal of what he has said I think the House has considerable sympathy. I will convey his remarks on this matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who, I have no doubt, will have due regard to them.

Mr. Sorensen: Could not the right hon. Gentleman insert some words to safeguard the position?

Sir K. Wood: It is very difficult, but I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider the matter.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: There are two persons on the Films Council representing the employés, but there is nothing in the Bill to allow them to increase the 75 per cent. Would my right hon. Friend, in consulting with the President of the Board of Trade, consider whether it would be possible to make this provision a little more elastic so that on a recommendation from the council the figure may be increased? There is a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman opposite says.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 22, line 31, leave out "made," and insert "paid or payable."

In line 33, leave out "so domiciled," and insert "domiciled in some part of His Maiesty's Dominions."

In line 34, after "In," insert "paragraph (a) of."

In line 43, at the end, insert:
and in paragraph (c) of that Sub-section the expression 'the requisite amount of labour costs' means, in relation to any film.—

(a) (in a case where the total labour costs of the film amount to not less than twenty-two thousand five hundred pounds, and the quotient derived from dividing the amount of the said total labour costs by the number of feet comprised in the length of the film is a sum of not less than three pounds) whichever of the two following amounts is the less, that is to say—

(i) the amount arrived at by applying the fraction three-quarters to the total labour costs of the film, after deducting therefrom, if the applicant for registration so desires, the amount of any payment which, as part of those costs, has been paid or is payable in respect of the labour or services of any one person who was, while engaged in the making of the film, neither a British subject nor a person domiciled in some part of His Majesty's dominions;
(ii) the amount arrived at by applying the fraction four-fifths to the total labour costs of the film, after deducting therefrom the amount of any payments which, as part of those costs, have been paid or are payable in respect of the labour or services of any two persons neither of whom was, while engaged in the making of the film, a British subject or a person so domiciled, and at least one of whom was so engaged in the capacity of an actor or actress; or

(b) in any other case, the amount arrived at under sub-paragraph (i) of the preceding paragraph:

Provided that if, upon the application for the registration, as a British film, of a film in respect of which the condition imposed by paragraph (c) of the preceding Sub-section is not fulfilled, the Board of Trade are satisfied that the maker of the film took all reasonable steps to fulfil the said condition, and that the non-fulfilment thereof was due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control, the Board, if they think fit, may direct that this Sub-section shall have effect in relation to that film, as if in paragraph (a) of this Sub-section for the words 'three-quarters' and the words 'four-fifths' there were respectively substituted the words 'seven-tenths' and the words 'three-quarters.'

In page 23, line 16, leave out Subsection (4).—[Captain Wallace.]

Ordered,
That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered To-morrow.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and by local authorities in respect of housing accommodation provided for the working classes, and with respect to arrangements between local authorities and other persons for the provision of housing accommodation, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

A. of such expenses as may be incurred by the Minister of Health (hereinafter referred to as 'the Minister') in making to any local authority—

(1) in respect of each new house or new flat completed after the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine which, with the approval of the Minister, is provided by that authority by way of housing accommodation—

(a) rendered necessary by displacements occurring in connection with any action taken by that authority under the Housing Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'principal Act') for the demolition of insanitary houses, for dealing with clearance or improvement areas, or for closing parts of buildings, or
(b) rendered necessary by displacements occurring in the carrying out of redevelopment under the principal Act, or
(c) required for the abatement of overcrowding,

an annual contribution for forty years of the following amount, that is to say:—

(i) five pounds ten shillings or (in a case in which there are fulfilled the conditions laid down by the said Act of the present Session with reference both to the low level of the rents obtainable from working-class housing accommodation in the area of the local authority and to the inadequacy of the financial resources of that area) six pounds ten shillings; or
(ii) in the case of a flat provided in a block of flats on a site the cost of which, as developed, exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds per acre, an amount not exceeding twenty-six pounds, determined in accordance with the Table appended to this Resolution; and

(2) in respect of each new house or new flat completed after the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine which, with the approval of the Minister, is provided by, the local authority by way of housing accommodation required for


the agricultural population (as defined by the principal Act) of the area of the local authority, an annual contribution for a period of forty years of ten pounds or, in the special circumstances mentioned in the said Act of the present Session, a greater amount not exceeding twelve pounds; and
(3) in respect of each new house or new flat which, in pursuance of arrangements with the local authority, is provided by some other person, with the approval of the Minister, by way of housing accommodation required for the agricultural population (as defined by the principal Act) of the area of the local authority, an annual contribution for a period of forty years of an amount not exceeding ten pounds; and

B. of such sums as may become payable by the Minister by virtue of any provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(1) amending the provisions of Subsections (1) and (3) of Section one hundred and nine of the principal Act, and directing that Sub-section (2) of that Section shall be deemed not to have come into operation until the date of the passing of the said Act of the present Session; or
(2) directing—

(a) that, in the circumstances mentioned in the said Act of the present Session, houses and flats are to be treated as having been completed after the beginning of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, notwithstanding that they were in fact completed before the beginning of that year; or
(b) that, in the circumstances so mentioned, two or more buildings containing flats shall be treated as if the several buildings were one building on a single site; or

(3) amending the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section ninety-four of the principal Act; or
(4) enabling the Minister to continue to make payments by way of a contribution under. Section one of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, in respect of any house or flat which, with the assistance of a local authority, has been provided by some other person, notwithstanding that it has become vested in the local authority:

Provided that this resolution shall not, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph A thereof, authorise the payment of any expenses the payment of which is authorised by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph.

Where the cost per acre of the site as developed—
£
s.
d.


exceeds £1,500 but does not exceed £4,000
11
0
0


exceeds £4,000 but does not exceed £5,000
12
0
0


exceeds £5,000 but does not exceed £6,000
13
0
0


exceeds £6,000 but does not exceed £8,000
14
0
0

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) [MONEY].

Resolution reported.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, in relation to persons who are, or who since the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, have been, employed in the manner mentioned in subsection (2) of Section two of that Act, and to make consequential Amendments in the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the sums necessary to defray such increase in any expenditure which by the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, or the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, is directed to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament as is attributable to the operation of the said Act of the present Session.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: A few weeks ago I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him whether he would receive a deputation of old age pensioners, and the answer I got was so unsatisfactory that I am now raising the matter on the Adjournment. I am of opinion that there are no people in the country who have a better right to be received by the Chancellor than the old age pensioners. I base that view on two particular grounds. From the point of view of the service they have given to the country they have a right to be received. They have given 50 years or more of service to the industries of the country. They have laboured in the mines and the factories, they have cared for the homes, they have built up


our cities, towns and villages, these men and women who are now 65 years of age and over. It can be said with the greatest measure of truth that all that is great in this country, whether in its commerce or its institutions, has been based upon the service given by them and their predecessors.
So on the ground of service I would claim the right of these old people to be heard; but there is also the question of need, and here it has to be said to the shame of those in authority that their need is as urgent as their service has been great. Ten shillings a week, under the best conditions, means the most bitter hardship for these old folks, but with prices steadily rising it is almost impossible to describe the conditions under which many of them are forced to live. There is not a Member on this side of the House who could not spend hours dealing just with their experiences among the old folk in their own districts and with the hardships they have to endure.
I do not want to take up much time with particular cases but I will tell one story to which I have already referred in this House. At an old age pensioners meeting in Lochore, in Fife, where I was asked to speak, I was accompanied upon the platform by representatives of many social and religious organisations. One of those upon the platform was Father McGarvie, the parish priest of Lochore. He spoke of many of his experiences in visiting the homes of the poor. He told us of an old age pensioner who was afflicted with the poverty which is common to so many of them. Poverty and want are their constant companions. He went one day to this old lady, and she showed him a certificate which she had received from a doctor certifying that she was blind. No greater calamity could befall any man or woman than never to see the face of friends or loved ones any more. Father McGarvie said that this old woman expressed a strange, sad and pathetic pleasure in the receipt of that certificate. Why? Because it meant that she would now receive a few more shillings a week to ease the heavy burden of life.
Let the Minister think of that tragedy. Will he listen to it? Will he hear further stories from me or from others who can speak for the old folks? We have in Scotland an Old Age Pensioners' Association.

What a commentary upon the Capitalist system that the old folk, men and women who have given such service to the country, should be forced, in the last years of their lives, to form an organisation in an effort to get justice. In Lochore there is Mr. John Gray, who for long years has been the district secretary for the Foresters' Society, and associated with him is his colleague Mr. Penman. Although they are 70 years of age or thereabouts they have been carrying on the greatest possible activity in connection with this question of the position of old age pensioners. They have been out night after night, giving voluntary service in connection with the conditions of the old age pensioners. Have they not a right to be heard in the behalf of many thousands of people with whom they come in contact and whom they represent?
In another part of Fife, Mrs. Westwood, 75 years of age, the mother of the hon. Member for Falkirk Burghs (Mr. West-wood) goes out day after day and night after night trying to get something done on behalf of the old age pensioners. Has she a right to be heard? She writes to Ministers, as others have written to Ministers. What happens? I have many letters. I have a pocketful, but here is a sample:
Dear Madam,—In reply to your recent letters addressed to the Prime Minister on the subject of old age pensions, I am directed by the Minister of Health to state that your representations have been noted.—Your obedient servant,"—
and then signed by some secretary. "your representations have been noted." Can hon. Members imagine the coal-owners writing to the Prime Minister and receiving a reply of that kind? Can they imagine the City of London writing to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some pressing question and getting a letter of that sort? Is it possible that the old people of this country, who have given such service to the country, can be treated in that manner? Here is another letter:
Dear Madam,—I write on behalf of the Prime Minister to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th October. It would, I fear, be quite impossible for the Prime Minister, during his forthcoming visit to Edinburgh, to receive a deputation as you ask. Yours truly,"—
and then again signed by some secretary. No, the Prime Minister would not meet the old age pensioners in Edinburgh;


Mussolini? Oh, yes, he must be considered. Surely in Edinburgh the Prime Minister should have been prepared to meet these old folk. Surely it is not possible that they can be treated in this way.
So, I ask, have not Mr. John Gray, Mr. Penman, and Mrs. Westwood a right to be heard in behalf of the old age pensioners? In Fife, as in other parts of the country, there has been much discussion of this matter, and the hon. Members for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Kennedy) and even the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) have all been associated with the old age pension movement. Have they not a right to be heard by the Minister with the representatives of the old age pensioners? Surely they have. I am not asking for some special privilege for the old folks of the country. I am asking for what everyone must recognise to be the right of the old age pensioners. I remember the Prime Minister telling us, before he became Prime Minister, that Lord Baldwin received a number of Members of Parliament and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be present; and so we had the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer receiving Members of Parliament to hear their story of how they were getting along on £8 a week.
The present Prime Minister told us in this House that Mr. Baldwin and he were very deeply distressed to hear of the difficulties of some of their fellow-Members. But, if they were deeply distressed to hear how Members have to live on £8 a week, why will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister receive a deputation from these old age pensioners, and hear how they have to live on 10s. a week? It may be that they are afraid that their distress would be too great; I am not very sure about that. If the City of London, the coalowners, or the railway directors asked for a deputation to be received by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would they be refused? No. But have they any more right to be received than the old folks? I am not asking for a special privilege. I assert here that if the door of Downing Street is open —and I do not want to close it to anyone—no body of people in this country

has a greater right to enter than the old folks of this country. They have given great service to the country; their need is very urgent; and, because of the urgency of their need, and because of the service they have given, on which any prosperity that may exist is built, I demand that these old age pensioners be received and have an opportunity of stating their case.

11.19 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The hon. Member has made a strong and sincere appeal for the old age pensioners. I would remind the House of the cause of this discussion to-night. It arose, as the hon. Member has said, from a question which he put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 8th of this month. It was as follows:
Whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he will receive a deputation from the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association on the question of increased old age pensions?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1938; col. 847, Vol. 331.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that he did not consider that a useful purpose would be served by this deputation. The hon. Member said he would like the doors of Downing Street to be closed to no one; but, if his party ever comes into office, and he finds himself a Minister, as I have no doubt would happen if his party were in office, he would be pressed by a very great number of requests for deputations, and, in deciding whether to meet a deputation or not, the Minister concerned must consider whether a useful purpose would be served. I use that phrase, not in any hard-hearted sense, but in its literal meaning.

The question of old-age pensions is of real national importance. It covers not a part of the country, but the whole country. There are at present some 2,500,000 old age pensioners receiving pensions under the various Acts, and the hon. Member's plea was that the Chancellor should receive a deputation from the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association. The hon. Member spoke of the work of that association. I know something of the association, and I am not in any way criticising its work or its composition. But I state the fact when I say that its membership does not represent more than a small proportion of the old age pensioners even in Scotland.


I do not think the hon. Member will dispute that. I do not say that their views differ from those held by a large number of old age pensioners. But this question affects not only Scotland, but England and Wales and all parts of the country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to consider, in the first place, in deciding whether to receive deputations or not, whether the deputation is fully representative of the whole question which is raised.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned also the financial aspects of this problem in a supplementary answer to the hon. Gentleman. He said that a matter of this sort is governed by finance. In my task as Financial Secretary, I am frequently told I am hard-hearted, but I have a certain responsibility in this matter of finance; that is, to point out to hon. Members of all parties that the social services, of which our pensions scheme is possibly the greatest, depend for their existence and continuance on being based on a sound financial structure. It has been pointed out in several Debates that the financial aspect of an all-round increase in pension rates is one which merits very serious consideration. For example, if all old age pensions were increased, including those of widows under 65—and a strong feeling has been expressed on their behalf—by 5s. all round, that would cost £43,500,000 per year at present, while if widows were excluded the cost would be £35,500,000. Even as things stand at present, the total cost of our pensions scheme, contributory and non-contributory, is steadily and automatically increasing. At present, the total cost is £92,000,000, and the cost to the Exchequer is £63,000,000, a figure which is automatically increasing. In point of fact, this Government is spending £16,000,000 more in pensions than was spent by the Labour Government when it was in office. That must be borne in mind when one is asked to undertake a big all-round increase such as the hon. Member has in mind. It is only fair that I should point that out. The hon. Member, in his question, based his plea on the increased cost of living. I know when we speak of the cost of living that what the pensioner has in mind is not so much ancient history, looking back a number of years, as the recent trend in the cost of foodstuffs in the shops. But even when full weight is given to

that consideration it remains true to say that had pensions originally been tied to the cost of living when they were fixed at 10s., they would to-day be considerably less than 10s. The figure, which I have worked out, is that to-day they would stand at 7s. 1d. if they had been tied to the cost of living when they were instituted, because that cost of living has fluctuated. Recently there have been upward movements, although in the last few months there has been evidence of some check in that movement, and in February the cost of living was two points lower.

I recognise that this question of pensions is one of national interest and one which it is very proper that hon. Members of all parties who are in close touch with their constituents in all parts of the country should voice and discuss. I suggest that in a national matter of this kind, it would be quite proper for hon. Members who have any fresh facts which they wish to bring forward to come and see me, and I would make a point of seeing them. I make that offer to the hon. Member, if he is able to produce any fresh facts. I am, however, bound to warn him before he comes that the present financial situation is not favourable to a large increase in the burdens upon the taxpayers, a view which was expressed in the House of Commons in a Motion only a fortnight ago. My answer to the hon. Member's plea is that I do not lack sympathy for the old age pensioners, but I consider that it is best that their case should be put by Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. If he wishes to meet me and discuss the facts, I will gladly meet him, but I must emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, in my view, taking the proper course when he said that at the present time to discuss that question with this association would not serve any useful purpose. I am therefore bound to answer the hon. Member in that strain, but I shall be glad to meet him if he wishes to discuss the matter with me.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: During the last few years there has been a substantial increase in indirect taxation. It is estimated that by this means more than £100,000,000 has been realised. Could not the old-age pensioners obtain from that source of income, which is taken from the livelihood of the people, an


increase in their old age pensions? Increased prices bring to the Treasury an enormous amount of money, and surely that is a sum of money which ought to be available for the persons for whom we appeal.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to meet me and one or two other hon. Members in order to discuss this matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, I will meet the hon. Member and any other hon. Members of any party who wish to discuss this matter with me.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.